Ensuring Safety in Family Disputes: High Court Disposes of Plea for Police Protection with Practical Safeguards

Judgments Online

July 25, 2026
11:38 am

In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner sought police protection due to apprehensions of harm from his brother, respondent no. 2, following threats despite a settled civil dispute. The State submitted that the petitioner’s complaint was currently under inquiry given it arose from a domestic dispute between two brothers. To address the immediate safety concerns, the State provided the local beat constable’s contact number to the petitioner, satisfying his grievance. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition by directing the local police to respond promptly to any distress calls from the petitioner and ensure his safety, while clarifying that the order does not validate the truth of the allegations against respondent no. 2.

Nature of Petition: Filed as W.P.(CRL) 2160/2026 along with accompanying applications CRL.M.A. 21635/2026 and CRL.M.A. 21634/2026, seeking a writ of mandamus for police protection.
State’s Stand: The Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) noted that the grievance stems from an ongoing dispute between two brothers, and the petitioner’s complaint is currently under official inquiry.
Practical Resolution: The ASC shared the mobile phone number of the area’s Beat Constable with the petitioner’s counsel so that the petitioner could contact law enforcement immediately during any emergency.
Final Directions:
- The petition and associated applications were disposed of.
- The local police are directed to respond to the petitioner’s calls during distress and ensure he suffers no harm from respondent no. 2.

The Court explicitly clarified that its directions do not constitute a finding or belief regarding the veracity of the petitioner’s allegations against respondent no. 2.

2026 DHC 5913

Mohd Shamim Ansari v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (D.O.J. 24.07.2026)

2026 DHC 5913 click here to view full text of judgment

Service Law: Balancing Fairness and Executive Discretion in ITI Instructor Recruitment

July 25, 2026 No Comments

The present batch of civil appeals arose from a common judgment of the Allahabad High Court, challenging the recruitment process of Instructors in Government Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) initiated by the State of Uttar Pradesh under the 2014 Rules. The core controversy revolved around whether the State erred in diluting the Craft Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) certificate from a mandatory essential qualification to a mere preferential/desirable qualification, contrary to Central Government directions. While the Supreme Court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the State regarding the general bar on challenging a selection process after participation, it closely examined the selection records. The Court discovered that the Selection Committee had arbitrarily introduced unauthorized cut-off marks to screen out candidates instead of adhering strictly to the statutory shortlisting mechanism outlined in Rule 16 of the 2014 Rules. Noting that substantial vacancies remained unfilled and that the appellants were subjected to arbitrary treatment midway through the selection, the Supreme Court invoked its powers to grant meaningful relief by directing their consideration and appointment against vacant or newly created supernumerary posts.

Challenge to Rules and Participation:
- Appellants—holders of CITS certificates—challenged the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institutes (Instructors) Service Rules, 2014, and subsequent advertisements for diluting the mandatory CITS certificate requirement.
- The Supreme Court upheld the State’s preliminary objection that candidates who participate in a selection process without initial demur are normally estopped from challenging the rules or the process later.
Arbitrariness and Unauthorized Shortlisting:
- Despite the estoppel rule, the Court held that candidates are not barred from challenging a process if blatant illegality or arbitrariness is demonstrated.
- Rule 16(3)(b)(i) of the 2014 Rules permitted shortlisting only by limiting candidates to four times the number of vacancies when applications were received in large numbers, using marks secured under academic/technical components.
- The Selection Committee/State acted arbitrarily by superimposing an unwritten cut-off threshold to screen out candidates prior to interviews, resulting in a large number of unfilled vacancies. This amounted to changing the rules of the game midway.
Availability of Vacancies and Relief:
- Official legislative assembly figures confirmed that thousands of instructor posts remained vacant, countering the State’s initial claims.
- Deciding that denying relief solely due to the passage of time would cause injustice, the Supreme Court set aside the arbitrary exclusion and allowed the appeals with specific directions.
Court Directions:
- Appellants, members of the registered society, and impleaded applicants are granted liberty to approach the appointing authority within two weeks with a copy of the judgment.
- The respondents must conduct interviews for these candidates, determine inter-se merit as per rules, and verify original qualifications and antecedents.
- Eligible candidates are to be appointed against currently vacant posts, or through the creation of supernumerary posts if eligible candidates exceed available vacancies.

Appointments will be given with prospective effect within four months, entitling appointees to service benefits (excluding back wages, seniority, and promotion), along with future eligibility for pension and gratuity.

2026 INSC 741

Arvind Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (along with connected appeals) (D.O.J. 24.07.2026)

2026 INSC 741 click here to view full text of judgment

Navigating Multiple Cyber Fraud FIRs: Jurisdiction, Distinct Transactions, and the Limits of Article 32

July 25, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India addressed a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the quashing of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered across different States (Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Odisha) or, alternatively, their clubbing and consolidation under a single investigating agency. The FIRs involved allegations of cyber fraud where victims were duped into transferring money into a bank account belonging to the petitioner’s proprietary concern. The Court held that a writ petition under Article 32 directly before the Supreme Court is not an appropriate substitute for remedies available under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 before the High Court, especially when no fundamental right violation or exceptional circumstance is established. Furthermore, the Court declined to club the FIRs, ruling that distinct offences involving different complainants, separate transactions, and independent timelines cannot be amalgamated merely because a similar modus operandi was used or because funds hit the same bank account.

Maintainability under Article 32: The Court reaffirmed that while a petition under Article 32 to quash an FIR is maintainable, it is an extraordinary remedy. Aggrieved parties are ordinarily expected to approach the respective High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution first, unless a glaring violation of fundamental rights or exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
Absence of Fundamental Right Infringement: The petitioner’s defense—that he was working abroad on a merchant ship and that his bank account was misused by third parties—did not disclose any direct infringement of a fundamental right or justify bypassing statutory remedies.
Inapplicability of Clubbing and the “Test of Sameness”: Applying established precedents (such as T. Antony, Babubhai, and State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore), the Court noted that multiple FIRs cannot be clubbed unless they arise from the same transaction or incident.
Distinct Transactions in Cyber Frauds: The Court held that independent complaints lodged by different victims on separate dates involving distinct financial losses do not satisfy the triple tests for a “same transaction” (unity of purpose, proximity of time and place, and continuity of action), even if a common bank account or a similar modus operandi is used.
Impact on Investigation and Hardship: Interfering with nascent-stage investigations into complex cyber crimes involving multi-jurisdictional digital networks would hinder the unravelling of money trails. Furthermore, clubbing cases would cause severe hardship to diverse victims, many from rural backgrounds, forcing them to travel across States.

Final Order: The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue appropriate alternative legal remedies before the appropriate forums.

2026 INSC 740

Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (D.O.J. 24.07.2026)

2026 INSC 740 click here to view full text of judgment

Dismissal of Criminal Breach and Forgery Complaint Arising From a Commercial Freight Dispute

July 25, 2026 No Comments

The petitioner company filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), challenging a revisional judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) which had affirmed a Metropolitan Magistrate’s (MM) order dismissing the petitioner’s criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The underlying dispute arose from a 2005 commercial arrangement for shipping and customs clearance of used machinery imported from the USA. The petitioner alleged that the respondents had committed cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust by submitting a forged communication regarding the Free on Board (FOB) valuation to customs authorities, thereby depriving the petitioner of its full 9% commission. Both the trial court and the revisional court dismissed the complaint, holding that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and lacked sufficient grounds to issue process. The High Court of Delhi upheld these concurrent findings, noting a lack of explanation for the five-year delay in filing the complaint and finding no patent illegality or perversity to warrant interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Nature of the Dispute: The petitioner, engaged in freight forwarding and shipping, transported used machinery from the USA to the respondent company’s premises in Faridabad in 2005. The core disagreement involved whether a 9% service commission was payable on the total valuation, including dismantling and packaging charges, or solely on the base invoice value.
Allegations of Forgery: The petitioner claimed that a communication dated September 28, 2005, addressed to the Commissioner of Customs regarding the machinery’s consideration value, bore forged signatures of an overseas corporate official from Daikin USA.
Procedural History:
- The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. coupled with an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of an FIR, which the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed.
- Following pre-summoning evidence, the Metropolitan Magistrate formally dismissed the complaint on December 10, 2013, concluding no prima facie case was established.
- A subsequent Criminal Revision (No. 56/2014) filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on July 25, 2014.
High Court Findings:
- Scope of Interference: The High Court reiterated that under Section 482 Cr.P.C., courts will not interfere with concurrent findings unless there is a patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error.
- Civil vs. Criminal Nature: The court affirmed that the dispute fundamentally stemmed from a contractual and commercial arrangement rather than a criminal intent to cheat or commit forgery.
- Unexplained Delay: The court highlighted the unaddressed delay of nearly five years in instituting criminal proceedings from the date of the transaction in 2005.

Final Outcome: The petition filed by M/s Rosmarine Shipping Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed as devoid of merit, and all pending applications were disposed of.

2026 DHC 5860

M/s Rosmarine Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Clutch Auto Ltd. & Ors. (D.O.J. 24.07.2026)

2026 DHC 5860 click here to view full text of judgment