Criminal Contempt – Scandalising the Court – Repeated Allegations of Case Fixing and Corruption – Accused made reckless, false and unsubstantiated allegations against Members of Central Administrative Tribunal and Judges of the High Court in pleadings, affidavits, representations and oral submissions – Allegations included “case-fixing-deal-crime”, corruption, illicit relationships and criminal conspiracy – Held: Such allegations are scurrilous, scandalous and intended to lower the authority of courts and squarely fall within Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act [Paras 1–4, 11–12, 18].

Criminal Contempt – Abuse of Judicial Process – Conduct of Party-in-Person – Accused persisted with contemptuous pleadings even during contempt proceedings – No denial of imputations made – Evidence led by accused did not rebut charges but reiterated allegations – Held: Conduct amounts to aggravated contempt in the face of the Court and interference with administration of justice [Paras 10, 14–15, 18–19].

Criminal Contempt – Freedom of Speech – Limits – Defence of Fair Criticism Not Available – Accused sought to justify allegations as whistleblowing and criticism – Held: Freedom under Article 19(1)(a) does not extend to unfounded, malicious and scandalous attacks on Judges and judicial institutions – Fair criticism permissible, but imputing motives, corruption and collusion without basis constitutes contempt [Paras 7, 17].

Criminal Contempt – Proof of Charges – Documentary and Oral Evidence – Complainant examined and 18 documents marked establishing repeated scandalous statements – Accused admitted authorship of statements during cross-examination – Held: Charges proved beyond doubt; accused failed to discredit prosecution evidence or show mitigating circumstances [Paras 15, 18].

Sentence – Criminal Contempt – Determination of Punishment – Accused showed no remorse and continued adamant stance – Gravity of contempt, repetitive nature of allegations and impact on public confidence in judiciary considered – Held: Deterrent punishment necessary to uphold majesty of law [Paras 19–23].

Decision: Accused convicted for Criminal Contempt under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs.2,000/- – Conviction warrant directed to be issued – Accused taken into custody forthwith – Petition disposed of.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence and alleged eyewitness – Acquittal – Accused Nos.1 and 2 convicted by Trial Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder of husband of Accused No.2 by strangulation – High Court reappreciates evidence and finds that sole eyewitness (PW5), daughter of the deceased, turned hostile and did not support prosecution case – Other witnesses were either hearsay or hostile – Held: Prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 24–45, 49].

Evidence – Hostile Witness – Eyewitness turning hostile – PW5, projected as an eyewitness, categorically denied knowledge of the incident, denied illicit relationship, denied presence and overt acts of accused, and denied statement to police – Held: Once eyewitness testimony fails and remains uncorroborated, conviction cannot be based on such evidence [Paras 26–27, 41–45].

Evidence – Hearsay Witnesses – Evidentiary value – PW1 (brother of deceased) and PW3 (nephew of deceased) were not eyewitnesses and derived knowledge from others – PW1 resiled from FIR contents and admitted ignorance of complaint details – Held: Hearsay evidence without corroboration from primary source is inadmissible and cannot form basis of conviction [Paras 28, 40, 43–45].

Motive – Illicit Relationship – Proof – Prosecution alleged illicit relationship between Accused Nos.1 and 2 as motive – Except hearsay testimony of PW1, no independent or direct evidence forthcoming – Eyewitness (PW5) denied such relationship – Held: Motive not proved and in absence of reliable direct evidence, motive alone cannot sustain conviction [Paras 29–30].

Medical Evidence – Homicidal Death – Scope and Limitations – Doctor (PW6) opined death due to asphyxia by strangulation – However, medical evidence only establishes homicidal death and does not by itself connect accused with the crime – Held: Medical evidence cannot substitute proof of participation of accused in absence of credible ocular or circumstantial evidence [Paras 23, 33–34, 49].

Section 106, Evidence Act – Burden of Proof – Special Knowledge – Prosecution contended that death occurred inside matrimonial home and burden shifts to accused – Held: Prosecution must first establish foundational facts connecting accused with crime before invoking Section 106 – Failure to discharge initial burden disentitles prosecution from shifting burden on accused – Trial Court erred in applying Section 106 mechanically [Paras 46–48].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Appreciation of Evidence – High Court reiterates principles governing reasonable doubt, hostility of witnesses, and evaluation of circumstantial evidence – Held: Trial Court convicted accused on uncorroborated and insufficient evidence, resulting in miscarriage of justice [Paras 14–21, 48–49].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09/11/2018 in S.C. No.5022/2014 set aside – Accused Nos.1 and 2 acquitted of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Accused to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Compensation proceedings under Section 357A CrPC directed [Paras 49, Order].

Trademark Law - Infringement - Passing Off - Well-Known Mark - Section 159(5) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Interim Injunction - The use of a deceptively similar mark, even for different services, by a defendant with knowledge of the plaintiff's well-known registered trademark, constitutes infringement and passing off, warranting an interim injunction- The "saving" provision of Section 159(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, does not protect such use if the plaintiff's mark was registered after the 1999 Act and the defendant's adoption is dishonest.

Trademark Infringement - Passing Off - Well-Known Mark - Interim Injunction - The plaintiff, Federal Express Corporation, sought an interim injunction against the defendants, Fedex Securities Private Ltd. & Ors., for using the mark "FEDEX" in their corporate names and domain names, alleging infringement, passing off, and dilution of its well-known trademark- The defendants argued protection under Section 159(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, claiming prior use for financial services before the 1999 Act and distinctiveness from the plaintiff's courier services- Held: The plaintiff established a strong prima facie case- The mark "FEDEX" is a well-known registered trademark- The defendants' adoption of "FEDEX" was dishonest and an afterthought, as their explanation for its origin was implausible and inconsistent- The addition of "Securities" does not negate deceptive similarity- Section 159(5) does not apply as the plaintiff's Class 36 registration was post-1999 Act, and the defendants' use constitutes a "new use" amounting to infringement- The continuous use of a deceptively similar trading name, even for different services, amounts to infringement under the 1958 Act and passing off- Delay or acquiescence cannot be pleaded by dishonest adopters- Balance of convenience favors the plaintiff, and irreparable loss would occur if an injunction is not granted- Interim injunction granted- Paras [1-87]

Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 159(5) - Applicability - "Continued Use" - Held: Section 159(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, is a savings clause that protects the "continued use" of a particular registered trademark that was not an infringement under the 1958 Act- However, this provision does not apply to new uses or where the plaintiff's mark was registered after the commencement of the 1999 Act, especially when the defendant's adoption is dishonest and the use falls under new categories of infringement introduced by the 1999 Act (e.g., dilution, use on business papers)- Paras [69, 71, 72]

Trademark Law - Dishonest Adoption - Equitable Pleas - Delay and Acquiescence - Held: A defendant who dishonestly adopts a trademark with full knowledge of the plaintiff's reputation cannot raise equitable pleas such as delay or acquiescence to deny injunctive relief- The plaintiff's prompt objection to the impugned use further negates any claim of acquiescence- Paras [34, 35, 84]

Trademark Law - Deceptive Similarity - Corporate Name - Held: The use of a phonetically identical word like "FEDEX" as part of a corporate name, even with an additional descriptive word like "Securities," is likely to cause deception and confusion, suggesting a sister concern or agency relationship with the well-known trademark holder- The distinctiveness of the well-known mark is paramount- Paras [74, 80, 83]

Decision: Interim Application allowed- Temporary injunction granted restraining defendants from using "FEDEX" or any deceptively similar mark/name- Operation of judgment stayed for six weeks to allow appellate remedy- Paras [87, 88, 91].

Custodial Violence – Suo Motu PIL on letter alleging illegal arrest and torture – Prima facie inference of custodial beating supported by contemporaneous complaints, photographs and Magistrate’s injury observations – State directed to pay interim compensation of Rs.1,50,000 with recovery from erring officials – Inquiry ordered against medical officer issuing “fit for custody” certificate despite serious injuries – Non-installation of CCTV in police station held as blatant non-compliance of Supreme Court directions [Paras 2-3, 6, 8-9, 26-33].

Public Interest Litigation – Suo Motu Cognizance by High Court – Letter by victim’s wife alleging illegal arrest, torture and threats treated as PIL – Notice issued – SP directed to appear with records and CCTV DVR footage [Paras 2].

Police Accountability – Production of CCTV Footage – Police claim CCTV not installed at concerned police station – Court records the statement and notes systemic human rights concern – DGP interacted and expected to take corrective steps given recurring instances within 48 hours [Paras 3].

Custodial Torture – Prima Facie Assessment – State version that injuries caused in clash with villagers not accepted prima facie – Court relies on detailed complaint addressed to President of India, repeated complaints to authorities, and photographs indicating injuries consistent with custody violence – Held: case prima facie of custodial torture/beating [Paras 6, 8-9].

Arrest/Detention – Medical Treatment Duty – Primary investigation report noted injured accused should have been sent for treatment immediately but were not – Delay/omission treated as gross negligence and unprofessional conduct – Officer-in-charge suspended based on inquiry material [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Scrutiny of Injuries – Magistrate’s Observations Prevail Over Police Certificate – ACGM, Chandil recorded multiple injuries including fracture of both legs and sought explanation from Officer-in-Charge – Court notes mismatch between Magistrate’s observations and hospital certificate describing only bruises and declaring “fit for custody” – Held: certificate appears “managed” – medical officer cannot be exonerated [Paras 26-27].

Medical Negligence/Complicity – Departmental Inquiry Directed – Director, Health Services ordered to hold inquiry into issuance of medical certificate showing minor bruises and fitness for custody despite serious injuries including fractures – Report to be submitted before next hearing [Paras 27, 35-36].

Human Rights – Constitutional Safeguards – Court reiterates Article 21/22 protections and condemns any custodial violence regardless of duration or degree – Relies on Supreme Court jurisprudence including D.K. Basu guidelines and principles against third-degree methods – Emphasizes transparency and accountability in arrests and detention [Paras 14-17, 24-25].

CCTV Cameras in Police Stations – Binding Supreme Court Directions – Failure to install CCTV and inability to produce footage criticized – Court holds State has blatantly violated and flouted Supreme Court directions (Shafhi Mohammad / Paramvir Singh Saini line) and cannot justify absence of footage – Time sought by State till 31.12.2025 noted in other proceedings [Para 30].

Compensation – Public Law Remedy for Article 21 Violation – Interim compensation ordered based on prima facie custodial torture and suspension order acknowledging lapses – State to pay Rs.1,50,000 within one week to victim (Tarun Mahto) – Amount to be recovered from erring officials/officers – Clarified that interim compensation will not affect victim’s right to seek additional civil/criminal compensation [Paras 31-32].

Procedure – Further Pleadings and Listing – Counter affidavit directed within four weeks – Matter listed on 07.01.2026 – Copy of order to be sent to Director, Health Services for compliance [Paras 33-36].

Decision: Interim directions issued – State to pay Rs.1,50,000 as interim compensation within one week and recover from erring officials – Director, Health Services to conduct inquiry against concerned medical officer and file report – Counter affidavit to be filed – Matter listed on 07.01.2026 [Paras 32-36].

Public Interest Litigation – Abuse of Process – Forged Petition – Writ petition filed in the name of Adity Shivcharan Rathod found to be unauthorized and based on forged documents – Police investigation revealed petitioner had no knowledge of the case and disowned the documents – Court held filing of such petition amounts to fraud on the court [Paras 2, 10–13, 17].

Legal Ethics – Misconduct by Advocates – Investigation Ordered – Counsel named in the petition traced and found to have accepted cases through a third-party advocate – Court directed Bar Council of India to investigate professional misconduct of involved advocates – Emphasized lawyers’ duty as officers of the court and custodians of justice [Paras 18–22].

Judicial Process – Fraud on Court – Filing of multiple petitions in different names using identical documents and fabricated claims regarding property ownership – Court relied on Supreme Court judgment in Bhagwan Singh v. State of U.P. (2025) 6 SCC 416 – Held: No court can allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud – Court must protect its process from abuse [Paras 6–8, 18].

Police Investigation – Aadhaar Misuse and Forged Documents – DCP (South-East) filed status report confirming unauthorized use of petitioner’s identity – FIR directed to be lodged – Investigation to continue against all persons involved, including tracing of advocate named as intermediary [Paras 12–16].

Direction to Statutory Authorities – Bar Council of India directed to trace advocate Mr. Suraj Singh and examine involvement of Ms. Awanitika – Liberty granted to coordinate with police – MCD directed to act as per order of Appellate Tribunal (ATMCD) dated 27/10/2025, staying action on impugned construction [Paras 19–24].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petition found to be filed fraudulently without authorization – Matter referred to police and Bar Council of India for investigation and appropriate legal action – Directions issued for continued investigation, filing of FIR, and professional misconduct inquiry [Paras 16, 19–22, 25].

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – House Trespass – Rioting – Trial Court Conviction – High Court Reappreciation – Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427 and 452 r/w 149 IPC – Revision by de facto complainant against acquittal for offences under Sections 354, 395 and 511 r/w 376 IPC – Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 5, 47].

Criminal Trial – Delay in FIR – Effect – Alleged incident on 15.01.2001 – FIR recorded only on 16.01.2001 evening – Evidence showed complainant visited hospital and police station earlier but complaint lodged after discussions with relatives and political leaders – Held: Delay unexplained – Possibility of embellishment and coloured version could not be ruled out [Paras 25–27, 46].

Evidence – Ocular Testimony – Reliability – Sole reliance on evidence of PW1 (victim), PW2 (son) and PW5 (minor daughter) – Testimony riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies and improvements – Independent neighbour witness turned hostile – Held: Evidence not trustworthy for sustaining conviction [Paras 27, 39, 47].

Evidence – Medical and Scientific Evidence – Absence – Medical examination revealed no external injuries on PW1 or PW5 – No semen or spermatozoa detected – Allegations of sexual assault and attempt to rape not corroborated by medical evidence – Held: Prosecution version weakened [Paras 18–19, 47].

Criminal Law – Identification of Accused – Dock Identification – Mandatory Requirement – Witnesses failed to properly identify accused in dock – Inconsistent identification during testimony – Identification not recorded in accordance with law – Held: Identification evidence unreliable [Paras 30–31].

Criminal Trial – Non-examination of Material Witnesses – Adverse Inference – Elder daughter of PW1 and neighbour’s wife, both crucial witnesses, not examined – No satisfactory explanation for withholding material witnesses – Held: Prosecution case suffers from serious deficiency [Paras 21–22].

Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Group Rivalry – Political Enmity – Evidence disclosed communal riot, political murders and rival group clashes in locality – Defence evidence showed contemporaneous bomb blast incident and hospitalisation of second accused – Prosecution suppressed material facts – Held: Accused entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt [Paras 39–45].

Criminal Revision – Scope – De facto Complainant – Challenge to Acquittal – Revisional court cannot interfere unless findings are perverse – Trial court’s acquittal based on appreciation of evidence – Held: No ground to interfere with acquittal of remaining accused or with acquittal for sexual offences [Paras 5, 47].

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellants under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427 and 452 r/w 149 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges and set at liberty – Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Acquittal of accused for offences under Sections 354, 395 and 511 r/w 376 IPC confirmed [Paras 47].

Criminal Contempt – Forgery and Impersonation – Fabricated Court Filings – Conviction – Accused filed a statement of objections purportedly on behalf of Union of India by forging the signature and affidavit of the Central Government Standing Counsel – Counsel categorically denied preparing or filing the objections and disowned the affidavit – Held: Filing forged pleadings and impersonating counsel amounts to interference with due course of judicial proceedings and constitutes criminal contempt [Paras 1–2, 11–14].

Contempt of Courts Act – Section 2(c) – Interference with Administration of Justice – Accused personally served forged statement of objections on opposite counsel and filed the same before the Court – Evidence of Assistant Registrar, Oath Commissioner and Advocate witnesses corroborated fabrication – Held: Conduct squarely falls within definition of criminal contempt [Paras 6–7, 12–14].

Suo Motu Contempt – Procedure – Framing of Charges – Charges framed after detailed consideration by coordinate Bench – Accused given full opportunity to contest proceedings and lead evidence – Principles of natural justice complied with [Paras 2–4, 6].

Evidence – Oath Commissioner and Witness Testimony – Signature Mismatch – Oath Commissioner testified that signatures in oath register did not tally with genuine signature of the Central Government Counsel – Advocate witness identified accused as person who attempted service of forged objections – Held: Prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7, 12–14].

Defence of Accused – Plea of Assistance to Counsel – Rejected – Accused claimed he merely assisted counsel in filing objections – No documentary or electronic evidence supporting authorisation – Counsel entered appearance only later and expressly denied preparation or filing – Defence found false and untenable [Paras 10–13].

Sentencing – Criminal Contempt – Lack of Remorse – Accused showed no regret and persisted in allegations against Judges and counsel – Gravity of offence and impact on judicial process considered – Held: Custodial sentence warranted [Paras 16–18].

Decision: Accused convicted for Criminal Contempt of Court under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs.2,000/- – Accused directed to be taken into custody forthwith – Conviction warrant ordered to be issued – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Civil Law – Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC – Interim Injunction – Prima Facie Fabrication – Plaintiff sought to restrain enforcement of three impugned Memorandum of Agreements (MOAs) allegedly executed in 2019, claiming they were fabricated using blank signed papers – Plaintiff produced email exchanges and bank certificates showing that cheques mentioned in the MOAs did not exist on the purported date of execution – Court found significant inconsistencies between terms of MOAs and contemporaneous email records including a draft MOU offering 18% simple interest, whereas impugned MOAs imposed 2.5% compound interest per month – Held: Prima facie, MOAs appear fabricated and manufactured later – Injunction granted restraining defendants from enforcing MOAs [Paras 15–25, 27]

Contract Law – Fraud and Coercion – Documentary Evidence – Plaintiff alleged coercion in execution of MOAs and presented supporting evidence including bank statements and contemporaneous correspondence – Held: Bank-issued certificates confirming issuance dates of cheque books post-date MOAs and contradict recitals therein – Court found no reason to doubt genuineness of these certificates – Strong prima facie case made out that MOAs were backdated and fabricated to initiate coercive legal proceedings [Paras 21–25]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Defendants had initiated criminal complaints under Section 138 NI Act based on MOAs and dishonoured cheques allegedly secured through fraud – Court observed that continued reliance on MOAs to support prosecution may cause irreparable injury to plaintiff – Interim protection warranted to preserve status quo and prevent misuse of allegedly fabricated instruments [Paras 26–27]

Interim Relief – Principles – Balance of Convenience – Plaintiff demonstrated prima facie case and risk of irreparable harm – Balance of convenience favoured injunctive relief – Observations held to be limited to interim stage and not binding at final trial [Paras 26–29]

Decision: Application allowed – Defendants restrained from acting upon or enforcing the following three MOAs till final adjudication of the suit:

(a) MOA dated 20.03.2019 between plaintiff and defendant no.1 (Rs. 15,00,000/-)

(b) MOA dated 17.08.2019 between plaintiff and defendant no.1 (Rs. 1,15,00,000/-)

(c) MOA dated 17.08.2019 between plaintiff and defendant no.3 (Rs. 40,00,000/-)

– Interim injunction granted; suit listed for further proceedings on 11.02.2026 before the Joint Registrar.

Railways Act – Offence under Section 143(1)(b) – Illegal Sale of Railway Tickets – Conviction Upheld – Petitioner apprehended by RPF while in possession of two Tatkal tickets not in his name – Unable to offer explanation for possession – Witness testimony of RPF officials and PRS clerk corroborated seizure and conduct – Trial and appellate court upheld conviction – Held: No illegality in conviction – Proper seizure and procedure followed – Conviction sustained [Paras 5–8, 12].

Criminal Revision – Sentence Modification – Leniency – Petitioner a daily wage earner with family responsibility – Conviction dates back to 2012 – No material infirmity found in trial or appellate judgments – Considering passage of time and mitigating factors, sentence modified – Held: Imprisonment of two months set aside – Sentence reduced to fine of ₹10,000/- with default RI for 3 months [Paras 11–12].

Criminal Procedure – Seizure Without Independent Witness – Legal Validity – Petitioner argued seizure illegal due to absence of independent witnesses – RPF explained public unwillingness to participate – PRS official corroborated seizure and signed seizure list – Held: Absence of independent public witnesses not fatal when procedural integrity maintained and official testimony corroborates seizure [Paras 5–6].

Evidence – Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility – Petitioner claimed extra-judicial confession inadmissible as made in presence of police – However, independent corroboration through seizure materials and ticket records – No contradiction elicited during cross-examination of prosecution witnesses – Held: Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Criminal revision partly allowed – Conviction under Section 143(1)(b) of the Railways Act, 1989 upheld – Sentence of simple imprisonment for two months set aside – Petitioner directed to pay fine of ₹10,000/- within two months – In default, to undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment – No order as to costs.