Criminal Law - Additional Accused - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Petitioner challenged the order dated 22.08.2019 passed by ADJ-7 Bhagalpur summoning him to face trial for murder under Sections 302 and 34 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act - FIR was lodged regarding the killing of Bishwanath Kumar Gupta without naming the petitioner - Petitioner was implicated three months later based on a confession made under duress - Investigation was initially handled by a Senior Superintendent of Police who was related to the petitioner and involved in property disputes - Supervision was subsequently handed over to a DIG rank officer - Investigating officer SHO Kumod Kumar was penalized by the National Human Rights Commission and in departmental proceedings for wrongful investigation - Trial Judge Vinay Kumar Mishra was allegedly involved in corrupt practices and punished in disciplinary proceedings by the High Court - Out of eleven witnesses produced by the prosecution ten were declared hostile or provided irrelevant testimony - Mother of the deceased claimed petitioner paid the killers but admitted in cross-examination that she obtained this information from newspapers - High Court found that the summoning order was based on extraneous materials and lacked the strong and cogent evidence required by law - Held - Summoning order quashed as it was actuated by malafide at many levels and the materials were extremely insufficient - [Paras 1-29].

Evidence Law - Hearsay - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Testimony of mother of deceased alleging petitioner paid money to killers - Witness admitted knowledge was based on newspaper reports - Trial Court failed to consider the cross-examination - Held - Newspaper reports do not constitute strong and cogent evidence required for summoning under Section 319 - Such material would not even suffice to frame charges - [Paras 21-28].

Evidence Law - Nature of Statement - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 164 and 319 - Trial Court relied extensively on Section 164 statements of five witnesses - Held - Section 164 statements are not substantive evidence and are recorded during investigation - They can only be used to corroborate or contradict testimony given on oath during trial - Power under Section 319 must be triggered by evidence produced during trial itself - [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law - Judicial Discretion - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319 - Principles for exercise of power - Power is extraordinary and should be used sparingly to achieve criminal justice - Satisfaction level must be higher than a prima facie case at the time of framing charges - Evidence must be such that if unrebutted it would lead to conviction - Held - Courts must not exercise power mechanically or in a casual and cavalier manner - [Paras 23-27].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous petition allowed – Order dated 22.08.2019 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 492 of 2015 quashed.

Writ Law - Maintainability of Special Appeal - Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 - Chapter VIII Rule 5 - Bar on special appeal against orders passed in exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction - Assistant Registrar passed a composite order under Sections 25(2) and 4-B of the Societies Registration Act 1860 - Commissioner entertained an appeal and set aside said order - Single Judge in writ petition set aside Commissioner’s order but remanded the matter back to Commissioner to decide the appeal qua Section 25(2) - Maintainability of special appeal challenged on ground that it arose from an appellate order - Held - Special appeal is maintainable if the statute itself does not provide for an appeal to the lower authority - Jurisdiction is a creation of statute and cannot be conferred by consent or by a court's remand - If an authority lacks inherent jurisdiction - its exercise of power cannot be termed 'purported exercise' of appellate jurisdiction under Rule 5 - The bar on special appeals only applies where the lower authority has statutory jurisdiction to entertain an appeal or revision - [Paras 7-26].

Civil Law - Societies Registration - Societies Registration Act 1860 - Sections 25(1), 25(2) and 25(1)(d) - Appellate jurisdiction of Commissioner - Assistant Registrar passed order under Section 25(2) declaring society defunct and calling for meetings - Single Judge remanded matter to Commissioner to decide appeal against Section 25(2) order - Held - Section 25(1)(d) provides for an appeal to the Commissioner only against orders passed under Section 25(1) by the Prescribed Authority - No statutory provision exists for an appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Registrar under Section 25(2) - Direction for remand is improper as it seeks to confer jurisdiction upon the Commissioner which the statute does not provide - Order of Commissioner being without jurisdiction is a nullity - [Paras 13-14, 27-32].

Civil Law - Membership List - Societies Registration Act 1860 - Sections 4 and 4-B - U.P. Amendment Act 2021 (U.P. Act No. 8 of 2022) - Section 4(1-A) - Scope of Appeal - Challenge to Single Judge's finding that no appeal lies against an order passed under Section 4-B - Appellants contended that Section 4(1-A) provides an appeal against any order under Section 4 - Held - Section 4(1-A) was inserted specifically after Section 4(1) and is confined to orders related to the Committee of Management - Section 4-B is a distinct and independent provision dealing with lists of members of the General Body - The legislature did not provide any appeal against orders passed under Section 4-B - Single Judge's conclusion that such appeal is not maintainable affirmed - [Paras 34-42].

Decision: Special Appeal No. 371 of 2026 is allowed - Special Appeal Defective No. 337 of 2026 is dismissed - Order dated 13.03.2026 passed by Single Judge regarding remand is set aside - Order of Commissioner dated 13.02.2026 is set aside as being without jurisdiction.

Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide and Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 and 304 Part II - Appellant challenged conviction for throwing two minors into a well resulting in one death - PW2 mother of victims testified as an injured eyewitness that appellant harassed her and threw her children into the well when she resisted - Trial Court convicted for murder - High Court observed that while the act was imminently dangerous the motive appeared to be frustration of bad intentions towards the mother rather than a premeditated plan to kill the children - Held - Prosecution failed to prove specific intent to kill but established knowledge that the act was likely to cause death - Conviction modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC - Sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment awarded - [Paras 1-62].

Evidence Law - Injured Eyewitness - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 323 - Reliability of related witness - Mother of the deceased children identified appellant as the person who pressed her neck and kicked her before throwing the children into the well - Medical evidence corroborated injuries to her leg and the presence of liquid in the stomach of the deceased - Held - Testimony of an injured witness is accorded high status and cannot be discarded solely on account of being a related witness - Evidence found consistent and convincing - [Paras 21-32].

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 307 - Act of throwing infant into well - Appellant threw a one-year-old girl into a well who survived but sustained eye injuries - Held - The act of throwing a toddler into a well is inherently dangerous and demonstrates the requisite knowledge and act for an attempt to murder conviction - Conviction under Section 307 IPC upheld - [Paras 54-57].

Criminal Law - Atrocities Against SC/ST - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 - Section 3(ii)(v) - Requirement of caste-based motive - Victims belonged to Scheduled Caste community - Trial Court acquitted appellant of this charge - Held - To attract Section 3(ii)(v) the offence must be committed on the ground that the person is a member of the Scheduled Caste - Since the act was a result of a different immediate confrontation and lack of enmity the acquittal under this section is sustained - [Paras 36, 46].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence of 10 years RI and fine of Rs 50000 imposed – Convictions under Sections 307 and 323 IPC affirmed.

Writ Law - Reservation - Odisha Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act 2007 - Section 9(1) - State Government Schools (SGS) Quota - Petitioner passed 10th from Government High School under BSE Odisha and 12th from Christ College under CHSE Odisha in 2014 - Secured 49.66 percent marks in PCB subjects failing to meet the mandatory 50 percent aggregate for general category - Petitioner subsequently appeared for Chemistry through NIOS in 2022 and improved marks to meet the threshold - Claimed 15 percent horizontal reservation under SGS quota for NEET-UG 2025 - OJEE authorities refused allotment during Spot Round on ground that NIOS is not a State Government institution - Petitioner alleged the decision was hit by doctrine of estoppel and was discriminatory as candidates with lower ranks were allotted seats - High Court noted that SGS reservation is strictly restricted to students passing 10th from BSE Odisha and 12th from CHSE Odisha from Government institutions as per Notification dated 26.03.2021 - NIOS does not fall under definitions of High School or Junior College under Odisha Education Act 1969 - Held - Petitioner cannot bridge the qualification gap by using marks from a different Board to claim a quota specifically reserved for State Board students - Writ petition dismissed - [Paras 1-16].

Education Law - Eligibility for Reservation - Odisha Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Act 2007 - Section 9 - Combining Marks from Different Boards - Interpretation of State Government School (SGS) Quota - Petitioner relied on improved Chemistry marks from NIOS to satisfy the 50 percent aggregate requirement for medical admission under State quota - Held - SGS reservation can only be granted if the candidate passes both 10th and 12th from the State Board and satisfies the minimum qualifying marks from that Board alone - While NIOS marks may satisfy general eligibility under National Medical Commission rules - they cannot be utilized to claim a state-specific reservation restricted to CHSE Odisha students - A candidate cannot avail two privileges at the same time by using an external board to qualify for a state-specific quota - [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner held ineligible for reservation under the State Government Schools (SGS) quota.

Criminal Law - Separation of Trial - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 323 and 482 - Applicant sought setting aside of order rejecting separation of trial in a complaint case involving an absconding co-accused - The complaint case was a cross-case to a Sessions Trial where the husband of the applicant was the accused - Sessions Judge returned the complaint case to the Magistrate as one co-accused remained absconding - Magistrate rejected the application for separation noting the applicant failed to take steps for process execution under Section 204(4) CrPC - High Court observed that the Supreme Court had mandated a strict six-month timeline for concluding the main Sessions Trial - Held - Magistrate was justified in rejecting separation when the complainant defaulted in taking steps for execution of NBW and Section 82 CrPC proceedings - Any interference at this stage would violate the spirit of the time-bound trial directions issued by the Supreme Court - Application dismissed - [Paras 1-18].

Criminal Law - Cross Cases and Clubbing - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 323 - Magistrate power to commit - Case returned by Sessions Court due to absconding co-accused - Applicant moved for separation of trials to facilitate immediate commitment - Held - Unless compliance reports for process against absconding accused are obtained the Magistrate cannot proceed with separation or commitment solely to accommodate a cross-case trial - Statutory duty of complainant under Section 204(4) CrPC is paramount - [Paras 11-17].

Decision: Application dismissed – No illegality found in the trial court order – Applicant directed to comply with trial court directions for process execution.

Writ Law - Service Law - Regularization of Guest Lecturers - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - State challenged Single Judge order quashing G.O. (Ms). No. 247 and 248 (2022) - Petitioners were working as Guest Lecturers in Government Arts and Science Colleges appointed through college-level committees - Government initially proposed regularization of 1146 lecturers under G.O. (Ms). No. 56 (2020) through a special test - Subsequent 2022 policy mandated a written competitive examination for 4000 posts and canceled earlier notifications - Single Judge quashed 2022 G.O.s holding that rules of selection cannot be altered mid-process - Division Bench found that original appointments were made through walk-in interviews at the college level without State-wide advertisement - No final selection list was ever published under the 2020 policy - Principle of changing rules of the game applies only when selection is concluded or final list is published - Held - Single Judge order set aside - Writ petitions dismissed - Guest Lecturers have no fundamental right to be absorbed in service - Mere receipt of salary or provident fund does not equate to legal appointment - [Paras 1-63].

Constitutional Law - Public Employment - Open Competitive Process - Article 14 - Definition and Requirements - Court examined the validity of college-level recruitment for public posts - Open competitive process requires widely published and circulated advertisements - equal opportunity for all qualified persons under Article 14 - objective selection based on marks rather than pick-and-choose method - and transparent independent conduct - Held - College-level selection committees do not constitute an open competitive process - State-wide publication is mandatory for regular recruitment to substantive vacancies - [Paras 30-36, 42].

Service Law - Policy Revision - Rules of the Game - State of Bihar Vs. Mithilesh Kumar distinguished - Distinction between completed recruitment and ongoing policy change - In Mithilesh Kumar the candidate was recommended by the Public Service Commission before the policy changed - In the present case the regularization process under G.O. 56 was only underway and no final list was published - Held - Government is entitled to change its policy especially when informed by Supreme Court directions in Dr. K. Ragu case - Changes in recruitment rules cannot be equated with change in policy of regularization - [Paras 45-55].

Service Law - Regularization vs Recruitment - Right to Absorption - State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (III) applied - Differences in goals and legal status - Recruitment is rule-based filling of substantive vacancies through statutory methods - Regularization is a remedial measure for irregular appointments - Held - Contractual employees cannot claim equality with regular employees - No fundamental right to claim absorption for those employed on daily wages or contractual basis - [Paras 37-41, 80-82].

Decision: Writ Appeals allowed – Single Judge order set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – State directed to notify additional 1292 posts to reach the original 4000 vacancies – Selection to be made through open competitive process – Guest Lecturers to be granted maximum 15 weightage marks based on experience and age relaxation – Guest Lecturers not to be ousted from service until fresh recruitment process is completed.

Family Law – Contempt – Child Custody – Visitation – Wilful Disobedience of Family Court Orders – Petitioner alleged non-compliance with multiple orders dated 02.12.2022 to 25.07.2023 passed by Family Court, North-West, Rohini in GP No. 109/2022 directing visitation rights in favour of the father qua minor daughter – During pendency of contempt petition, Family Court vide order dated 21.03.2025 transferred interim custody to the father, noting that the mother had repeatedly shifted between countries, failed to provide stability, had no record of the child's schooling, had previously lived in UK as a refugee, and had consistently violated court orders – High Court directed that all Family Court orders, including the custody order dated 21.03.2025, shall be immediately enforceable and enforced under supervision of the Family Court [Paras 1–5, 13–14].

Interim Visitation Arrangement – Child Counsellor's Report – Orders dated 15.04.2026 and 06.05.2026 passed by the High Court with consent of parties directed interim visitation on alternate days as an arrangement to avoid abrupt implementation of the custody order – Subsequently modified to visitation once in every three days with exemption on examination days – Child Counsellor's report dated 25.05.2026 noted initial resistance from child towards father but observed gradual improvement and willingness to interact during later sessions – Said interim arrangement held to have served its purpose and discontinued [Paras 6–11].

Review Petition – Scope of Contempt Orders – Review petitioner objected that directions in orders dated 15.04.2026 and 06.05.2026 went beyond the scope of the orders of which contempt was alleged – Held: Review petition disposed of in terms of discontinuation of the interim visitation arrangement — necessary implication being that all Family Court orders become immediately enforceable [Paras 10–12].

Contempt – Enforcement – Family Court's Duty – Family Court directed to ensure immediate compliance and enforcement of its subsisting orders without any delay – Mere pendency of applications shall not afford justification for continued wilful disobedience – In case of non-compliance by either party, Family Court entitled to make appropriate reference for action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Contempt petition and Review Petition No. 220/2026 disposed of – Interim visitation arrangement under orders dated 15.04.2026 and 06.05.2026 discontinued – All subsisting Family Court orders including custody order dated 21.03.2025 declared immediately enforceable and directed to be enforced under supervision of Family Court – All rights and remedies of parties reserved [Paras 12–17].

Commercial Courts Act – Jurisdiction – Section 2(1)(c)(vii) – Immovable Property Used Exclusively in Trade or Commerce – Plaintiff permitted defendant (his elder brother) to use commercial/industrial shed at Okhla Industrial Area for running business activities without consideration – Trial Court returned plaint holding the dispute to be a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) – Held: The suit property is admittedly a commercial/industrial shed and as per the plaint itself, the defendant was permitted to use it for running business activities – The arrangement has a commercial character and concerns immovable property used for commercial purposes – Alleged permissive gratuitous use does not render the agreement non-commercial for the purpose of applicability of the Commercial Courts Act [Paras 8, 11].

Gratuitous Licence – Commercial Character – Section 52, Indian Easements Act – Payment of licence fee or consideration is not an essential attribute for the subsistence of a licence under Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act – A licensor can permit a person to enter property without any consideration – Gratuitous licence is legally valid – However, the issue in the present case is not the validity of a gratuitous licence but whether the arrangement possesses the commercial character contemplated under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act – Gratuitous nature of the arrangement does not negate its commercial character [Paras 10–11].

Return of Plaint vs. Transfer – Section 24 CPC – Section 12-A Compliance – Where a suit filed prior to the Supreme Court's declaration of prospective applicability in Patil Automation (P) Ltd. vs. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd. ought to have been filed as a commercial suit, the abrupt remedy of return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is not the appropriate course – In order to avoid loss of all proceedings before the earlier court, recourse to Section 24 CPC empowering transfer to the competent court is a more appropriate remedy – Section 24 CPC is not amended by the Schedule to the Commercial Courts Act and continues to apply in full force – Question of Section 12-A compliance is kept open for the transferee court [Paras 13–16, 18].

Commercial Dispute – Definition – Strict Construction – The expression "used exclusively in trade or commerce" in Section 2(1)(c)(vii) refers to property actually being used for commercial purposes and not property merely ready for use or likely to be used in future – Strict construction of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act is required, as any liberal interpretation would defeat the object of speedy disposal of high-value commercial disputes – For a dispute to qualify as a commercial dispute, the transaction must carry a commercial flavour encompassing elements of trade and business [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Impugned order returning the plaint set aside – Suit transferred in exercise of powers under Section 24 CPC to be listed before the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge on 06.07.2026 for directions – Question of compliance of Section 12-A kept open for the transferee court to decide in accordance with law [Paras 17–19].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Special Procedure – Dispensing with Regular Inquiry – Rule 12 MARKFED Punishment and Appeal Rules – Petitioner was Branch Incharge and joint custodian of wheat stocks at MARKFED Branch Office, Batala – Physical verification revealed shortage of 21,973 bags (10,986.04 quintals) valued at Rs. 2,56,77,891/- – Petitioner signed physical verification report acknowledging shortage – Managing Director dispensed with regular inquiry under Rule 12(ii) and (iii) and dismissed the petitioner recording reasons that the petitioner caused heavy loss to MARKFED by embezzlement in connivance with co-custodian – Held: Essential precondition for invoking Rule 12, namely recording of reasons by punishing authority for dispensing with regular inquiry, stands duly satisfied – Power under Rule 12 was not exercised mechanically or without application of mind – Order of dismissal upheld – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 8–9, 22–23].

Natural Justice – Useless Formality Theory – Admitted and Indisputable Facts – Petitioner, as joint custodian, had signed the physical verification report unequivocally recording a massive shortage – These are not disputed facts requiring adjudication through a contested inquiry but self-evident circumstances acknowledged by petitioner's own signatures – Where on admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the court may not issue its writ to compel observance of natural justice as courts do not issue futile writs – Movement of more than 22,000 bags of wheat weighing over 10,986 quintals could neither occur silently nor overnight without the knowledge of the custodian – Even if non-holding of regular inquiry amounted to procedural violation, no real prejudice has been caused to the petitioner – Compliance would be a useless formality [Paras 13–18].

Disciplinary Proceedings vs. Criminal Proceedings – Standard of Proof – Departmental proceedings are entirely distinct and independent from criminal proceedings – Standard of proof in criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas in departmental proceedings it is the much lower threshold of preponderance of probability – Petitioner cannot seek absolution merely on the basis of police investigation report finding him innocent of criminal conspiracy or on the basis of an affidavit filed by co-custodian assuming full responsibility – Supervisory liability is intrinsic to the office held and is not transferred by self-serving documents [Para 19].

Quantum of Punishment – Dismissal – Proportionality – Penalty of dismissal from service is neither disproportionate nor shocking to the conscience of the court – Petitioner was holding a position of trust responsible for public property worth crores of rupees – Shortage of 21,973 bags constitutes gross negligence if not outright embezzlement causing immense financial loss – Appellate and Revisional Authorities have affirmed the dismissal – Interference with quantum of punishment warranted only if punishment is so shockingly disproportionate as to call for no other conclusion than that it is arbitrary and perverse – Present case does not fall in that category [Para 21].

Scope of Judicial Review – Disciplinary Matters – Scope of judicial review under Article 226 in disciplinary matters is extremely limited – Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact recorded by departmental authorities unless they are perverse or based on no evidence – Findings of departmental authorities being based on clear evidence including physical verification report signed by petitioner, no perversity or arbitrariness is made out [Para 22].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Orders of Punishing Authority dated 28.11.2018, Appellate Authority dated 27.03.2019 and Revisional Authority dated 03.03.2020 upheld – Dismissal from service confirmed [Para 23].