Writ of Mandamus – Requirement of Legal Right – Petitioners sought direction not to close alleged 30-feet road connecting colonies – Held, issuance of mandamus requires establishment of a judicially enforceable legal right and corresponding public duty – Petitioners failed to demonstrate existence of road through cogent material – Mere assertion insufficient – No mandamus can be issued in absence of proof of right [Paras 11-14, 20, 29].

Pleadings in Writ Proceedings – Burden of Proof – In writ jurisdiction, not only facts but supporting evidence must be pleaded and annexed – Petitioners relied only on photographs which did not establish existence of road – No village map or revenue record produced – No rejoinder filed to counter affidavit – Petitioners failed to discharge burden [Paras 15-19].

Suppression of Material Facts – Clean Hands Doctrine – Court found inconsistencies in pleadings and lack of supporting material – Petitioners approached Court without full and candid disclosure – Applying doctrine of suppressio veri, expressio falsi, discretionary relief declined [Paras 20-23].

Public Trust Doctrine – Protection of Water Bodies – Subject land classified as Vagu Poramboke reserved for natural water flow and flood protection – Banks/bunds of water bodies integral part of natural resource – State holds such resources in trust for public and future generations – Encroachments or diversion impermissible – Flood protection works cannot be stalled without proof of lawful right [Paras 24-28].

Vakalatnama – Importance of Attestation – Three petitioners initially denied signing vakalat – Court examined procedural safeguards under Appellate Side Rules and Order III Rule 4 CPC – Attestation not mere formality but mandatory safeguard to prevent impersonation and unauthorised litigation – Registry directed to verify attestation scrupulously – Advocates cautioned to mention name and Bar Council enrolment number while attesting [Paras 31-39, 42].

Incidental Enquiry – Denial of Signature – Registrar (Judicial) conducted enquiry – Report indicated petitioners signed document though alleged ignorance of contents – Court declined to delve deeper but issued caution to Bar and Registry [Paras 36-38].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petitioners failed to prove existence of alleged road or establish enforceable legal right – No costs – Registry directed to ensure proper scrutiny of vakalatnamas – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Anticipatory Bail – Cyber Crime – Misuse of Social Media and Digital Identity – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Cyber P.S. Case No.14/2025 involving serious allegations under BNS, 2023 and Information Technology Act, 2000 – Allegations of creation of fake email and Instagram accounts in the name of informant, circulation of obscene photographs, defamatory emails sent to employer, and threats of blackmail – Held: Prima facie materials collected during investigation disclose grave and serious offences – Discretion under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS declined [Paras 2, 6–9, 15].

Consensual Relationship – Limits of Consent – Right to Privacy and Dignity – Defence of consensual extra-marital relationship raised by petitioner – Court held that prior consensual relationship does not confer any right to violate dignity, privacy, or autonomy of the informant – Exploitation of vulnerability under guise of friendship or intimacy impermissible in law [Paras 9–10, 13–14].

Cyber Offences – Prima Facie Evidence from Case Diary – Investigation revealed petitioner’s mobile number used for creation of fake email and Instagram accounts – Obscene photographs sent even after registration of FIR to Vice-Chancellor of informant’s workplace – Independent witness supported allegations of threats, blackmail, and demand of Rs.25,00,000/- – Strong prima facie case made out against petitioner [Paras 6–8, 11].

Threats, Blackmail and Obscenity – Seriousness of Allegations – Allegations included threats to circulate obscene material, demand for money or divorce, and attempts to sabotage informant’s employment – WhatsApp chats revealed use of abusive and sexually explicit language – Such conduct held to transcend boundaries of lawful interaction and attract penal consequences [Paras 8, 14].

Anticipatory Bail – Extraordinary Discretion – Principles Governing Exercise – Power under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS is extraordinary and not to be exercised routinely – Court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that pre-arrest bail should not be granted where it may impede investigation in serious and organised offences – Grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances would adversely affect investigation [Paras 12, 15].

Investigation at Crucial Stage – Pre-Arrest Bail Likely to Hamper Probe – Digital evidence, cyber trail, and electronic devices required custodial interrogation – Grant of anticipatory bail would impair effective investigation and unearthing of full conspiracy – Public interest and victim’s rights weighed against petitioner [Paras 12, 15].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application dismissed – Interim protection earlier granted vacated – Court declined to exercise discretion under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS in favour of petitioner.

Matrimonial Law – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC – Proof of Marital Status – Respondent filed for maintenance claiming to be the wife of the petitioner – Petitioner denied marriage and stated respondent had a subsisting marriage with another man, Manik Ali – Respondent admitted earlier marriage and claimed to have divorced him through affidavit – Held: Affidavit before Notary does not constitute lawful dissolution of marriage – No valid proof of divorce from first husband produced – Family Court erred in presuming marital status with petitioner – Maintenance order unsustainable [Paras 15–28, 30–32]

Family Law – Validity of Divorce – Respondent relied on unverified affidavit as proof of divorce – No proceedings under Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 shown – Court held that lawful dissolution is mandatory before claiming marital status with another – Respondent failed to prove such dissolution – Claim of marriage with petitioner not tenable [Paras 21, 25–27]

Burden of Proof – Standard of Proof in Section 125 CrPC – Though strict proof of marriage is not required, where prior marriage is admitted, burden lies on claimant to prove its lawful dissolution – Respondent failed to do so – Held: Without proof of valid divorce, respondent could not claim to be wife of petitioner – Entitlement to maintenance not established [Paras 17–18, 26–27]

Decision: Criminal revision petition allowed – Order of Family Court dated 17.03.2025 set aside – Respondent not entitled to maintenance as she failed to prove lawful dissolution of previous marriage – No valid marital relationship with petitioner established.

Criminal Law – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Abuse of Process of Court – Petition filed seeking quashing of sanction order, FIR and charge-sheet arising out of mutation dispute relating to immovable property – Allegations against petitioner confined to passing an order staying mutation proceedings pending title suit – Held: Criminal prosecution based solely on judicial/quasi-judicial order amounts to malafide prosecution and abuse of process of law [Paras 27, 31–33].

Public Servant – Executive Officer – Quasi-Judicial Functions – Protection under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Executive Officer exercising powers in mutation proceedings held to be a “Judge” within meaning of Section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act – Orders passed in discharge of quasi-judicial duties protected from civil and criminal proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Act – Held: Protection squarely applicable where order passed bona fide in course of official duty [Paras 20–26, 30].

Mutation Proceedings – Stay Order Pending Title Suit – No Criminal Liability – Petitioner stayed mutation proceedings as title dispute was pending before competent civil court – Such order appealable before superior authority – Mere allegation of favouring a party insufficient to constitute criminal offence – Errors, if any, correctable in appeal, not through criminal prosecution [Paras 20, 27, 31].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Non-application of Mind – Sanction order dated 28.12.2020 found cryptic and non-speaking – No discussion as to why statutory protection available to petitioner should be withdrawn – Sanctioning authority failed to consider material and legal safeguards – Held: Sanction vitiated for non-application of mind and liable to be quashed [Paras 28, 32].

Judicial / Quasi-Judicial Acts – Distinction from Criminal Misconduct – Passing of an administrative or quasi-judicial order, even if erroneous, does not constitute offence unless actuated by malice, corruption or extraneous considerations – No prima facie material suggesting recklessness, malafides or corrupt motive on part of petitioner [Paras 26–27].

Earlier Complaint and Property Dispute – Colour of Civil Dispute – Dispute essentially civil in nature relating to title and mutation of property – Criminal proceedings initiated subsequently against Executive Officer held to be an attempt to settle personal scores arising out of property dispute [Paras 16–17, 31].

Decision: FIR in Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 238 of 2014, sanction order dated 28.12.2020, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings quashed qua the petitioner – Criminal Miscellaneous Petition allowed.

Civil Writ - Recruitment Examination – Alleged Paper Leak and Mass Copying – Systemic Malaise – Petitioners sought quashing of entire recruitment process alleging circulation of OMR sheets on social media, identical wrong answers, geographical concentration of toppers and collusion – Held: Mere suspicion, conjecture or post-result dissatisfaction is insufficient to vitiate a recruitment process – Heavy onus lies on petitioners to establish systemic fraud going to the root of the selection [Paras 1, 12, 15].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Process – Limits of Interference – Court reiterated that interference is warranted only when sanctity of examination is compromised at a systemic level rendering segregation of tainted and untainted candidates impossible – Where allegations rest on disputed questions of fact and are examined by a fact-finding inquiry, courts should exercise restraint [Paras 10, 12–13].

Inquiry by Retired High Court Judge – Evidentiary Value – Respondents placed sealed inquiry report prepared by a retired Judge of the High Court – Inquiry exhaustively examined allegations relating to regional concentration, prior poor performance, age of candidates, familial relationships and identical wrong answers – Forensic examination of OMR sheets ruled out common authorship and impersonation – Inquiry report upheld fairness and transparency of examination – Held: Such report deserves due deference in absence of perversity or mala fides [Paras 2, 11, 16].

Objective-Type Examination – Similar Wrong Answers – Evidentiary Appreciation – Allegation that top candidates chose identical incorrect answers – Held: Similarity in wrong answers can arise from common preparation material, elimination techniques and exam stress – In absence of evidence of tampering, communication devices or access to answer keys, such similarity does not establish malpractice [Paras 11(e), 16].

Geographical Concentration of Successful Candidates – Effect – High number of toppers from particular districts alleged to indicate cheating nexus – Inquiry found candidates appeared at different centres with no roll-number or seating proximity – Held: Regional concentration by itself cannot give rise to presumption of collusion or unfair means [Paras 11(a), 16].

Cancellation of Examination – Doctrine of Proportionality – Court relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence to hold that cancellation of an examination is an extreme measure – Where no systemic breach is demonstrated and it is possible to segregate tainted candidates, cancellation would be disproportionate – Facts of Tanvi Sarwal and Sachin Kumar distinguished as involving proven large-scale and organized malpractice [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Recruitment process under Advertisement No. 6 of 2023 upheld – Interim order vacated – Inquiry report accepted and returned – No direction for fresh examination or criminal investigation warranted [Paras 18–21].

Criminal Law - Money Laundering – Discharge under Section 227 CrPC – Scheduled Offence – Section 467 IPC included as scheduled offence w.e.f. 01.06.2009 – Accused discharged by Special PMLA Court on ground that alleged predicate offence was committed prior to inclusion of Section 467 IPC in Schedule – Held: Approach erroneous – Offence under Section 3 PMLA is independent and concerned with process or activity connected with proceeds of crime – Date of commission of scheduled offence not determinative if laundering activity continues after enforcement of Act or amendment – Money laundering is a continuing offence so long as proceeds of crime are possessed, used or projected as untainted property [Paras 19–29, 34].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Retrospective Application – Article 20(1) of Constitution – Special Court held PMLA has no retrospective operation – High Court held that proceedings were not based on retrospective criminalisation of predicate offence – Penal consequence attaches to continuing laundering activity post-amendment – Application of PMLA in such circumstances does not violate Article 20(1) [Paras 26, 29].

Scheduled Offence – Necessity and Scope – Existence of scheduled offence is sine qua non for PMLA proceedings – Conviction in predicate offence not mandatory at stage of charge – Material indicating derivation of property from criminal activity relating to scheduled offence sufficient to proceed – Discharge at threshold held unsustainable [Paras 28–32].

Attachment of Property – Section 5(1) PMLA – Nature of Proceedings – Special Court set aside attachment treating proceedings as penal – Held: Attachment and confiscation proceedings are civil and preventive in nature – Not invalid merely because predicate offence predates amendment, so long as proceeds of crime subsist and are traceable [Paras 30–31].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Reliance placed by accused on Obulapuram Mining Company case – Held: Not persuasive as judgment under challenge and cannot override authoritative pronouncement in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary – Supreme Court decision binding and squarely applicable [Paras 33–34].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order of discharge dated 15.12.2017 set aside – Trial Court directed to proceed with trial in accordance with law – Interim orders vacated [Paras 35–36].

Arbitration Law – MSME Award – Section 34 Challenge – Limitation – Preliminary Objection – Jurisdictional Issue – Award passed by MSME Facilitation Council on 27.09.2023 – Section 34 petition filed on 16.01.2024 – Commercial Court rejected preliminary objection on limitation relying on Munsarim report and alleged High Court indulgence – Held: Limitation under Section 34(3) is jurisdictional – Commercial Court misread Division Bench order which merely relegated party to alternate remedy – No automatic condonation of delay – Order rejecting objection on limitation held perverse and unsustainable – Matter remitted for fresh decision on limitation by a reasoned order [Paras 43–72].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34(3) – “But Not Thereafter” – Scope of Condonation – Delay beyond three months but within further thirty days can be condoned only upon judicial satisfaction – Mere filing within 120 days does not ipso facto justify condonation – Court must examine pleadings and reasons for delay – Absence of proper consideration vitiates order [Paras 59–62].

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 14 – Exclusion of Time – Applicability to Section 34 Proceedings – Section 14 applicable to Section 34 proceedings – Conditions for benefit reiterated – Party must plead and establish due diligence, good faith and prosecution before wrong forum – Commercial Court failed to examine statutory conditions – Remand warranted [Paras 56–58, 71–72].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Interference with Orders of Commercial Court – High Court to interfere sparingly – However, where Commercial Court ignores jurisdictional issue of limitation and proceeds on manifestly erroneous premise, interference justified – Order suffers from non-application of mind and arbitrariness [Paras 41–42, 70–72].

MSMED Act, 2006 – Section 19 – Mandatory Pre-Deposit of 75% – Release of Amount Pending Challenge – Pre-deposit mandatory for entertaining Section 34 petition – Proviso empowers court to release such percentage of deposited amount to supplier as deemed reasonable – Commercial Court justified in releasing 75% deposit to supplier subject to indemnity and interest – Direction to secure remaining 25% upheld [Paras 79–88].

Money Decree / Arbitral Award – Stay – General Principle – Money decree or award ordinarily not stayed – Court may balance equities by securing amount and releasing part thereof – No patent fraud shown – Commercial Court’s approach held in consonance with law [Paras 86–88].

Appropriation and Reprobation – Plea of Limitation – Mere participation in proceedings or insistence on statutory pre-deposit does not amount to waiver of limitation objection – Doctrine of approbate and reprobate held inapplicable to jurisdictional issue of limitation [Paras 68, 71].

Decision – Petition No. 3886 of 2024 partly allowed – Order dated 20.06.2024 set aside to the extent it rejected objection on limitation – Commercial Court directed to decide limitation afresh within four weeks – Petition No. 5145 of 2024 dismissed – Order dated 27.09.2024 releasing deposited amount and directing security for balance upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 72–90].

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act – Section 17(2) – Custody of Rescued Minor – Mother Allegedly Complicit in Prostitution – Child Welfare Committee Has Primacy – Petition Rejected – Victim girl (aged 17 years at time of rescue) was rescued from a prostitution racket in Crime No.395/2025 and placed in a Child Welfare Home – Mother filed application under Section 17(2) seeking custody claiming daughter had attained 18 years – However, investigation revealed that the mother had earlier also been involved in a similar crime (Cr.No.332/2024) and had again placed her daughter in the prostitution racket after her prior release – Held: When prima facie material shows the mother used her daughter for prostitution, the child cannot be handed over to the custody of such mother – Relying on Delhi High Court in Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee vs. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4101 and Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Prerana vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 984, held that notwithstanding Section 17 and Section 17A of the IT Act, by virtue of Sections 31(1) and 39(3) of the JJ Act, it is only the Child Welfare Committee which has final authority in respect of custody and restoration of a child victim – Petition dismissed [Paras 9-12]

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act vs. Juvenile Justice Act – JJ Act Has Primacy for Persons Under 18 Years – A person under 18 years rescued from a prostitution racket under Sections 15 and 16 of the IT Act must be treated as a "child in need of care and protection" under the JJ Act and not as a "juvenile in conflict with law" – If produced before a Magistrate and found to be under 18 years, the Magistrate must forthwith transfer the case to the Child Welfare Committee – JJ Act being a later and special enactment for children prevails over the general provisions of the IT Act – Bombay High Court in Prerana directed that any juvenile rescued from a brothel should be released only to a parent/guardian found fit by the Child Welfare Committee; if found unfit, rehabilitation procedure under the JJ Act must be followed [Paras 11-12]

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Order dated 15.11.2025 rejecting custody application upheld – Child not to be handed over to mother who is prima facie alleged to have used the daughter in the prostitution racket.

Criminal Law – Quashing – Section 528 BNSS – Scope – Applicants sought quashing of charge-sheet and proceedings for offences under Section 69 BNS and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act on plea of consensual relationship and false implication – High Court held that at the stage of consideration under Section 528 BNSS, only prima facie satisfaction is required and disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated – Held: No case made out for quashing [Paras 8–10, 16].

Sexual Offences – Minor Victim – Consent – Legal Position – Victim’s matriculation certificate showed date of birth as 01.01.2008 – Applicant admitted sexual relationship – Held: Consent of a minor is no consent in the eye of law – Sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years squarely attracts penal consequences irrespective of alleged consent [Paras 6, 10, 13].

Section 69 BNS – Sexual Intercourse on False Promise of Marriage – Applicability – Provision introduced under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sexual intercourse induced by deceitful means including false promise of marriage punishable even if not amounting to rape – Allegations and admissions disclosed prima facie offence under Section 69 BNS [Paras 11–14].

Rape – Statutory Rape – Section 63 BNS – Even though charge-sheet not filed for rape, Court observed that sexual intercourse with a girl under 18 years falls within definition of rape irrespective of consent – Prima facie applicability of aggravated penal provisions noted [Para 13].

Age Determination – Evidentiary Value – Matriculation Certificate – Argument that victim was major rejected – Held: Matriculation certificate carries primacy for determination of age at preliminary stage – Claim of “certificate age” without material evidence unsustainable [Para 10].

Admissions by Accused – Evidentiary Relevance – Applicants admitted physical relationship with victim in affidavit – Such admission strengthened prosecution case at threshold and negated plea of false implication at quashing stage [Para 7].

False Promise of Marriage – Distinction – Breach vs. Deceit – Reliance placed on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra – False promise made without intention to marry attracts criminal liability – Allegations indicated promise was false since inception [Para 14].

Section 175(3) BNSS – Complaint Proceedings – Effect of Withdrawal – Earlier complaint withdrawn at pre-cognizance stage after registration of FIR – Revision dismissed as infructuous – Held: Section 233 BNSS (bar against parallel proceedings) not attracted – No illegality in continuation of prosecution [Para 15].

POCSO Act – Prima Facie Case – Continuous sexual exploitation of minor alleged – Investigation resulted in charge-sheet – Held: Serious allegations involving protection of child cannot be scuttled at threshold [Paras 9–10, 16].

Decision: Application dismissed – No ground made out for quashing of charge-sheet, summoning order or criminal proceedings – Trial to proceed in accordance with law [Para 16].