Criminal Law - Further Investigation - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 173 - Challenge to acceptance of Negative Final Report and rejection of protest petition - FIR registered in 2015 regarding murder of petitioner brother - Investigating Officer submitted Negative Report citing inability to trace unknown accused despite efforts - Narcoanalysis test of petitioner was consented to but refused by authorities on ground that subject was not fluent in Hindi language - Petitioner sought direction for fair and impartial investigation including narcoanalysis test - High Court expressed shock at reasoning provided by investigating agency - Court observed that lack of fluency in a particular language cannot be a ground for refusal of such tests - Investigating authorities are expected to depute persons acquainted with the mother tongue of the witness or suspect - Held - Impugned order quashed - Matter remitted for further investigation to be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Circle Inspector - Investigation to include narcoanalysis test of petitioner or other suspects with necessary language assistance - [Paras 1-13].

Evidence Law - Narcoanalysis Test - Language Interpreter - Guidelines for Scientific Tests - Investigating Officer closed investigation because narcoanalysis could not be conducted due to petitioner lack of fluency in Hindi - Court held that language barrier is not a valid ground for denial - Reference made to landmark judgment in Selvi vs State of Karnataka - Held - Personnel involved in narcoanalysis must include a forensic psychologist- anaesthesiologist- psychiatrist- general physician and a language interpreter if needed - Procedure must strictly adhere to Supreme Court guidelines and be recorded in audio-video format - [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Impugned order dated 23.09.2022 quashed and set aside – Matter remitted for further investigation by a Circle Inspector – Investigation to be completed expeditiously.

Civil Writ - Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act 1994 - Section 9(4) - Organ Transplantation - Near Relative Donor - Rejection of Application - Authorization Committee rejected application for kidney donation from mother to son citing lack of proof of relationship - Held - When a donor claims the recipient is her own biological son the request cannot be casually ignored - Committee members are human beings and must recognize that love and affection are intangible sentiments that cannot always be measured by the length of association - Permission should be granted if donation is out of love and affection without financial transaction or coercion - [Paras 2-4]

Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act 1994 - Section 9(4) - Proof of Motive - Commercial Element - Burden of Proof - Held - Applicants can only assert the absence of commercial dealing and cannot be called upon to prove a negative - Scrutiny under Rule 17 allows for verification but excessive burden cannot be laid on applicants - In the absence of definite material establishing financial dealings the statement of the donor regarding love and affection must be taken at face value - [Paras 4-5]

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Evidence - Preponderance of Probabilities - Identification Documents - Petitioners produced birth certificate and Aadhaar and PAN cards - Documents established Petitioner 1 as the wife of Ratan Lal Chaurasia and Petitioner 2 as his son - Held - Applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities the relationship is clearly established - A biological mother should not be directed to undergo a DNA test to prove maternity when credible identification documents are available - Impugned order of the Authorization Committee set aside - [Paras 6-7]

Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act 1994 - Section 2(k) - Payment - Post-Donation Care - Duties of Authorization Committee - Definition of payment excludes defraying certain expenditures - Held - Recipient is obliged to defray costs and the Committee must ensure this obligation is discharged - Committee should direct medical insurance coverage and a lump sum deposit or monthly credit to the donor's account for three years to ensure physical and medical needs are met - Such arrangements do not run counter to the statutory scheme - [Para 5]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 17.04.2026 set aside – Second respondent directed to grant permission for kidney donation and transplantation forthwith – Procedure to be completed preferably by next week.

Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Service Law - Promotion - Right to be considered - Held - The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right though there is no fundamental right to promotion itself - If a person satisfies the eligibility criteria and is not considered it results in a clear violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16(1) - Promotion is a facet of equal opportunity in matters of employment - [Paras 7-9]

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay - Inordinate delay in initiation - Charge memo issued in 2026 for an incident occurring in 2016 - Held - Initiation of enquiry with abnormal and unexplained delay is prejudicial to the delinquent employee - Disciplinary proceedings should be concluded expeditiously to prevent mental agony and monetary loss - Delay defeats justice and causes prejudice unless the employee is responsible for the delay - Following P.V. Mahadevan vs MD T.N. Housing Board the court emphasized balancing clean administration with the rights of the employee - [Paras 7-8]

Service Law - Seniority - Retrospective Promotion - Effective date of promotion - Held - Promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted and not from the date a vacancy arises - Retrospective seniority cannot be granted from a date when an employee was not borne in the cadre as it might adversely affect others - Seniority is to be reckoned from the date of vacancy within the quota - [Paras 9-10]

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Promotion consideration - Petitioner's name was not being considered due to pending disciplinary proceedings despite a stay on the sanction in another writ petition - Held - Respondent authorities directed to consider the petitioner for promotion for the panel year 2025-2026 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 while considering seniority and eligibility - [Paras 5-10]

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Respondents directed to consider the petitioner for promotion for the panel year 2025-2026 based on seniority and G.O.Ms.No.257 – No order as to costs.

Writ Law - Motion Picture Ban - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Article 19(1)(a) - Petitioner a practising lawyer sought a ban on the film Karuppu alleging damaging portrayal of Courts and judicial functions - The film depicted a corrupt presiding officer and an unethical advocate in a fictional court located at Seven Wells - The High Court observed that artistic expression is entitled to a high pedestal and artistic license allows for exaggeration and melodrama - Held - The Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Central Board of Film Certification which is an expert body - Once a film is certified the State must maintain law and order rather than seeking a ban - The petitioner failed to challenge the CBFC certificate through a Writ of Certiorari and instead sought a Mandamus which is not maintainable - Writ petition dismissed - [Paras 1-20].

Constitutional Law - Freedom of Speech and Expression - Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a) - Article 19(2) - Scope of Artistic License - An artist has the freedom to express thoughts through any medium including movies - Artistic productions are weighed on a different scale than documentaries or factual essays - Commitment to free speech involves protecting even unpalatable speech - Judiciary is not exempt from criticism and justice is not a cloistered virtue - Held - Freedom of expression is the rule and the judicial caravan must move on despite outspoken comments or lack of respect in movie dialogues - [Paras 7-16].

Contempt Law - Criminal Contempt - Contempt of Courts Act 1971 - Section 2(c) - Scandalizing the Court - The movie unfolds in an imaginary court called Seven Wells Court - Petitioner contended that the portrayal scandalized the judicial system - The Court held that the word Court in Section 2(c) refers to an actual Court - Portrayal of corruption in an imaginary or fictional court does not attract penal provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act - Held - No case of criminal contempt is made out as the entire judicial system was not portrayed as corrupt and the setting was purely fictional - [Paras 18-20].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Criminal Law – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Vicarious Liability – Designation Alone Insufficient – Applicant prosecuted as Chairman and Managing Director of Wipro in connection with alleged labour law violations at the Lucknow establishment – Security services at the establishment had been outsourced to G4S Secure Solutions India Private Limited under agreement dated 18.03.2015, making the agency independently responsible for statutory compliance – No specific allegation of direct involvement, active role, or criminal intent attributed to the applicant – Held: Criminal liability cannot be fastened mechanically on the basis of designation unless statute specifically provides for vicarious liability or specific allegations of active role are made – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7–8, 12–14].

Summoning Order – Application of Judicial Mind – Mandatory Requirement – Impugned summoning order dated 08.02.2017 found to be wholly cryptic and non-speaking, passed in a proforma manner without any discussion of material on record, without satisfaction regarding ingredients of the alleged offence, and without properly discussing the relevant statutory provisions – Held: Summoning of an accused is a serious matter requiring application of judicial mind to facts and material on record before issuance of process – Mechanical summoning order not sustainable [Paras 9–11].

Coordinate Bench – Parity – On identical facts, a coordinate Bench in Application U/S 482 No. 3261 of 2017 had already quashed the complaint proceedings vide order dated 29.05.2024 – Present case stands on the same footing – Applicant entitled to the same relief [Paras 5, 11].

Decision: Application under Section 482 CrPC allowed – Summoning order dated 08.02.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 2882 of 2016 and all consequential proceedings, insofar as they relate to the applicant, quashed [Paras 13–14].

Service Law — Navy Act, 1957 — Section 163 — Order for Retrial — Competent Authority — Petitioner contended that order for retrial dated 13.02.2024 was passed by a Captain and not by the Chief of Naval Staff (CNS) as mandated by Section 163 — Held: From the original review file produced by the respondents it was evident that the CNS personally reviewed and disposed of the review petition directing retrial; the memo dated 13.02.2024 was merely a communication of the CNS's order by a subordinate Captain — No violation of Section 163 proved [Paras 35, 45].

Service Law — Navy Act, 1957 — Retrial — Addition of Fresh Charges — After communication of retrial order and before commencement of retrial, petitioner allegedly committed four further naval offences under Section 3(13) of the Act — Respondents clubbed these additional charges with the original two charges in retrial proceeding — Held: Respondents justified in trying subsequent offences together with original charges in retrial; no miscarriage of justice warranting judicial interference [Paras 36, 42].

Service Law — Principles of Natural Justice — Summary Trial — Charges Read Out at Each Stage of Investigation — Regulations 22–27 prescribe procedure for investigation including reading of charges and opportunity to the accused — From original files it was evident that charges were read out to the petitioner at all stages of investigation prior to commencement of proceeding — Held: Principles of natural justice and fair play duly observed; allegation of non-supply of documents not substantiated [Paras 37, 43].

Service Law — Double Jeopardy — Article 20(2) — Petitioner alleged that his original rank was not restored before retrial, resulting in double jeopardy — Held: From the finding of the Commanding Officer it was clear that the punishment genform was cancelled and original rank restored before retrial; in absence of contrary material, factual finding of the competent authority cannot be disbelieved in judicial review — Contention of double jeopardy has no basis [Paras 38–40].

Service Law — Doctrine of Bias — Retrial Conducted by Different Officer — Petitioner alleged retrial was conducted by the same Executive Officer who conducted first round proceedings — Held: From original file it was evident that retrial was conducted by P. Sasi Kumar, Commodore, Commanding Officer, and not by Joydeep Chakraborty who conducted the first round — Allegation of bias factually incorrect [Para 41].

Service Law — Dismissal — Approval of CNS — Regulation 15 — Punishment of dismissal from naval service requires approval of the CNS — Held: From original file it was evident that CNS approved the punishment on 28.11.2024; no procedural irregularity in imposition of punishment — Judicial review not warranted [Paras 22, 46].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed — No order as to costs [Para 47].

Complaint – Complainant alleged a criminal conspiracy among accused persons, including a Special Public Prosecutor, police officers and private individuals, to falsely implicate him in multiple criminal cases and to forge the appointment letter of the Special Public Prosecutor – Police filed a 'C' Summary report in one of the FIRs – Allegations found to be vague, speculative and lacking particulars – Inordinate unexplained delay of approximately three years in lodging the complaints – Held: Registration of FIRs is an abuse of process of law; complaints are the outcome of personal grudge and vendetta; all criminal proceedings quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS [Paras 22–25].

Special Public Prosecutor – Validity of Appointment – Presumption of Regularity – Core allegation was that the Special Public Prosecutor appeared in multiple criminal proceedings against the complainant on the basis of a forged or non-existent appointment letter – Held: Official records including recommendations, appointment letters, notifications and communications from senior police officers and a former Home Minister establish the validity of the appointment – A communication from a Desk Officer to the effect that a copy of an appointment order is not traceable cannot outweigh substantive official records – Maxim omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta applies; presumption under Section 114 Illustration (e) of the Evidence Act raises a presumption of regularity of official acts – Adverse orders obtained by the complainant in cases where the Special Public Prosecutor appeared do not constitute grounds for a criminal complaint [Paras 9–12].

Bar Council Proceedings – Prior Complaint Dismissed – Complainant had lodged a complaint before the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa making identical allegations of forgery of appointment letter against the Special Public Prosecutor – Bar Council conducted a preliminary inquiry (No. 167 of 2023) and dismissed the complaint by order dated 3rd September 2023 – Held: Police investigation into the alleged professional misconduct of an advocate would impinge upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bar Council; such investigation is not permissible in law [Paras 13–14].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Duty of Court – Frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings – When quashing is sought on the ground that proceedings are manifestly frivolous or malicious, Court is duty-bound to examine all attending circumstances and read between the lines; Court is not confined to the averments in the FIR – Delay in lodging an FIR is a crucial factor; unexplained inordinate delay puts the Court on guard and requires minute examination of allegations – Held: Even if allegations constitute some minor offence, police machinery cannot be permitted to conduct a fishing inquiry when the main allegations are not entertainable – Criminal proceeding manifestly attended with malafide can be quashed [Paras 8, 19–24].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120B IPC – Principles – Court reiterated the broad principles governing the law of criminal conspiracy: agreement to do an illegal act is the gist of the offence; conspiracy is rarely proved by direct evidence and must be inferred from circumstances; all conspirators need not agree at the same time; cogent and convincing evidence against each accused is required; the Court must guard against unfairness caused by a joint trial – Applied to facts: no material produced by complainant to establish criminal conspiracy among accused persons [Para 18].

Decision: All writ petitions and criminal application allowed – CR No. 742 of 2024 (Thane Nagar PS) and CR No. 46 of 2024 (Colaba PS) and all criminal proceedings arising therefrom quashed – All pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law - Regular Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 420 406 467 468 471 and 120-B - Petitioner filed first regular bail petition in FIR No 169 - Allegations involve extraction of approximately Rs 28.5 lakhs from the complainant by promising to influence High Court Judges to secure service benefits for the complainant s father - Petitioner claimed he was merely a driver for the co-accused Mithun Kaushik and was falsely implicated due to association - Petitioner argued he was in custody for nearly one year and that the case was triable by a Magistrate - State resisted bail highlighting the petitioner s active role in collecting money on multiple occasions and extending false assurances to the complainant regarding the influence of the principal accused - Court found that the allegations prima facie disclose a systematic design to exploit litigants - Held - Considering the gravity of the offences and the petitioner s specific role in the execution of the scheme the Court is not inclined to grant bail - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-18].

Criminal Law - Administration of Justice - Public Faith - Influence Peddling - Accused persons portrayed influence over judicial functioning for personal monetary gain - Court observed that such acts strike at the foundation of public faith in justice delivery - Held - Any attempt to exploit gullible litigants by falsely claiming access to Judges has the tendency to erode the sanctity and integrity of the judicial system and cannot be viewed lightly - [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law - Bail Considerations - Gravity of Offence - Participation of Petitioner - Petitioner argued for bail based on the peripheral nature of his role as a driver - Court noted specific allegations of active participation in money collection and providing repeated assurances to the victim - Held - The magnitude of the extraction and the systematic design of the act reflect more than an isolated or innocuous incident - Bail denied - [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No merit found in the application for regular bail.

Matrimonial Law - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2006 - Section 3 - Quashing of Proceedings - Specific Allegations - Petitioner mother-in-law and father-in-law allegedly demanded articles during Pongal - Sisters-in-law allegedly taunted respondent and encouraged husband's unruly behavior and liquor consumption - Held - While dealing with an application to quash the Court must consider if averments disclose a cause against petitioners - Specific allegations of acts leading to emotional or physical distress attract the provisions of the Act - Revision dismissed - [Paras 6-7]

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2006 - Personal Appearance - Dispensation of Appearance - Senior citizen petitioners and sisters-in-law staying separately - Form VII of DV Rules - Held - Nature of proceedings permits appearance through an Advocate - Appearance of petitioners dispensed with for all non-essential hearings - Petitioners directed to appear only when specifically called upon by the Trial Judge or when their appearance is indispensable - [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Revision dismissed – Personal appearance of petitioners dispensed with for non-essential hearings subject to representation by counsel and appearance when specifically required by the Trial Court.