Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nikhil Saraf vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 December, 2025
CRM-M-27602
27602-2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-27602-2025 (O&M)
Nikhil Saraf
....Petitioner
Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondentss
Date of reserve: 19.12.2025
Pronouncement on: 22.12.2025
Date of uploading:
uploading 22.12.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:- Mr.
r. Nikhil Saraf, petitioner in person
person.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.
Mr. Chandandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.5.
*****
SUMEET GOEL, GOEL J.
1. Taking exception to the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as ''impugned impugned order') ') and the consequent order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the State Cyber Division, Punjab, the petitioner has filed the petition in hand under Section 528 of BNSS, BNSS 2023 seeking quashing thereof. The substantive prayer made in the petition in hand reads thus:
thus:-
"Keeping in view thee above stated facts and circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or directions:-
1 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2025 10:58:34 ::: CRM-M-27602 27602-2025 (O&M) 2 A) To kindly allow the Petition etition under section 528 of B BNSS of 2023 for quashing of order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the Ld. JMIC, Ludhiana,, Annexed as Annexure P P-2, 2, being illegal, contrary to basic tenets of natural justice and without jurisdiction jurisdiction, as the Ld. Magistrate it has erred in treating the application filed by respondent No. 5 (Davinder Singh Kalra) Kalra),, who supposedly was a complete stranger to the saidd matter matter/controversy controversy involving "SEX FOR CASH" audio clippings allegedly of a senior Police official of Punjab Police, which was also published by the Petitioner on his Publications, under section 31 d and 32 b of IT Intermediary Guidelines and Digital media Ethics Code Rule 2021 read with section 90 of BNSS of 2023 as a public interest litigation (PIL) which was beyond the jurisdiction of Ld Magistrate and without issuing notice ice to any of the affected parti parties// Petitioner and further decided the said application of the same day by issuing directions unlawfully.
B) Also for quashing of the order dated 11/04/2025 passed by the Respondent No.4 (State Cyber division, Punjab Police), Annexed as Annexure P-8, as the he said order being arbitrary, motivated, based on an illegal order and also not bearing the Name and Designation of the signatory."
2. Shorn of non-essential essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated, thus:
(i) The learned JMIC, Ludhiana passed the impugned order wherein it was directed thus:
" 14. In view of the totality of facts, legal analysis, and the compelling need to prevent circulation of unverified and impersonated defamatory content, and to maintain public confidence in law enforcement agencies, to maintain law and order in the state and to preserve societal peace the following directions are hereby issued issued:
(i) Meta platforms Inc. iss directed to forthwith remove and disable access to all the impugned vide videos os and posts posted on Facebook 2 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2025 10:58:34 ::: CRM-M-27602 27602-2025 (O&M) 3 and Instagram as listed above. It shall Also ensure that no re re--
upload, Repost, tag or circulation of same content or any content of similar nature is permitted on its platforms, particularly if the same relates to the person,, persons or institutions depicted in the said impugned content and is unverified, unauthentic in genuine, defamatory or created with mala fide intent.
(ii) Google LLC (You Tube) is directed to immediately remove block and disable public access to the impugned YouTube videos listed therein. It shan't further ensure that no video of the same or similar nature - whether in the form of re re-upload, upload, Edited form shorts, or as a reaction - iss allowed to be published or circulated unless duly verified, authentic, and iin n public interest, free from malice or defamation and in accordance with law.
(iii) X. Corp. (formerly Twitter Inc.) is directed to remove the impugned tweets and videos from its platform as detailed above. The platform shall take adequate preventive steps to en ensure sure that no similar defamatory, impersonated, or misleading content concerning the same individual(s), or institution(s) is uploaded or shared in the future.
(iv) Independent digital news platforms platforms, including any registered or unregistered digital news publish publishers, web-based based portals or mobile applications who may have hosted embedded or circulated the impugned content or any similar material, whether on their own websites or via third party platforms, are directed to remove suc such h content immediately and to dis disest from any further publication dissemination or circulation of the same or related material in any form, of such unauthenticated, defamatory, or impersonated content in any manner.
(v) It is further directed that no person person, group, page, handler or digital entity shall post, repost repost, tag, upload or circulated the impugned content or any content of similar nature concerning the same individual(s) or institution(s), if the same is unauthenticated, unverified, fabricated or intended to malign malign, defame or damage the dignity of any person or institution, especially the law enforcement agency.
3 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2025 10:58:34 ::: CRM-M-27602 27602-2025 (O&M) 4
(vi) The In-charge, State Cyber Crime rime Division, Mohali, is hereby Directed to take immediate steps to implement and monitor compliance with this order. The interm intermediary ediary platforms are further directed to comply with Rule 3 of the IT Rules, 2021 and Section 90 of the BNSS, 2023.
(vii) Separate list of links order to be removed from the concerned platforms are also annexed herewith for the sake of convenience as Annexure A. It be read as part of this order.
(viii) Non-compliance compliance shall be treated as violation of this judicial order."
(ii) The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation bearing no. CWP-PIL-98 98-2025 (hereinafter referred to as ''PIL') before this Court. It was inter alia averred in the said petition that:
" 2. LOCUS STANDI AND MAINTAINABILITY xxx xxx xxx xxx In response to public disclosures on social media media, an ex parte gag order was issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana in an application filed under Section 90 of the BNSS, 2023, a provision limited to arrest warrants and the IT Rules ules 202 2021,, which impose obligations on intermediaries but do not ot confer powers of direct content suppression. The order was passed without notice, hearing, or forensic verification. (Annexure P-14).
Although the above mentioned order suggested that the content might be AI generated, the petitioner conducted an independent authenticity check AI-generated, using Resemble AI (one of the AI-detection detection tool referenced in the order). Since Resemble AI only accepts MP3 fi files les under one minute in duration, the original MP4 recordings were converted to MP3 without any modification to the voice or content, only adjusting the format and trimming the first file to a 45-second second sample to comply with the tool's requirements. When analyzed, nalyzed, Resemble AI determined that the voice appeared natural and not AI- generated (Annexure P-2 and P-3, 3, for recording 1 & 2). The State has neither authenticated nor denied the 4 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2025 10:58:34 ::: CRM-M-27602 27602-2025 (O&M) 5 material and has permitted suppression to stand without explanation. The Petitioner etitioner notes, without emphasis, that his factual tweet and recorded interview were among the content removed person to the said order. The material on record includes audio recordings of a senior officer discussing explicit sexual arrangements and instructing ructing a subordinate to share intimate photographs in a group chat (Annexure P4 is the USB, which includes Annexure P-4A 4A and P P-4B, 4B, which are the MP4 files of the recordings). The voice closely resembles that of a publically profiled "encounter specialist," as seen in televised interviews interviews, including one published by The Tribune, Tribune annexed herewith in the same USB (Annexure P-4C).
xxx xxx xxx xxx
D. Rather than triggering any verification or impartial inquiry
inquiry, the
responsee from the judicial system was one of premature suppression. On 07.04.2025, a Judicial Magistrate First Class in Ludhiana Ludhiana, acting on an ex parte public interest application, passed an order in CRM No. 1680/2025 directing the removal of the audio and video material from all digital platforms (Annexure P-14).
14). The order was passed without any adversarial hearing, without forensic authentication of the recordings and without consultation with any statutory authority responsible for investigating allegations of sexual exploitation, abuse of power or trafficking.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
6. GROUNDS:
A) VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (ARTICLES 14,
19(1)(a), 21)
xxx xxx xxx xxx
ii. Censorship & Right to Know: THE JMFC's ex parte gag order
(without forensic verification or adversarial hearing) suppresses material of grave public interest, violating:
Article 19(1)(a): Right to receive information, which the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Express newspaper newspapers v. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641 has recognized extends to matters of public importance portance involving state functionaries.
5 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2025 10:58:34 ::: CRM-M-27602 27602-2025 (O&M) 6 Article 21: Public safety demands transparency in cases implicating state actors. As held in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 226, when allegations concern higher echelons of power, citizens' right to kn know ow assumes heightened constitutional significance.
xxx xxx xxx xxx C) JUDICIAL OVERREACH & DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS Unconstitutional Gag Order: The JMFC's order suppresses material without:
Forensic authentication: As mandated in Lalita Kumari v. Government rnment of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1, preliminary verification is required before dismissing serious allegations. Hearing affected parties: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 emphasized that procedural fairness is the es essence sence of constitutional governance, making ex parte orders in matters of public importance inherently suspect.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
7. QUESTIONS OF LAW
xxx xxx xxx xxx
c) Whether the ex parte gag order issued by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, directing suppression of digital material without forensic authentication or adversarial hearing, violates:
Principles of Natural Justice and Due Process The public's right to know under Article 19(1)(a); and The judiciary's constitutional role as a check on arbitrary state action?"
In the backdrop of above averments, the following substantive relief(s) was sought for in the PIL:
" In light of the evident power imbalance, the verified material on record, the gravity of the allegations, and the imm imminent inent risks of evidence tampering, institutional suppression, and witness intimidation (or conversely, if the material is a malicious effort to erode trust in law
6 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2025 10:58:34 ::: CRM-M-27602 27602-2025 (O&M) 7 enforcement), it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate ate relief, including:
(i) Directing the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, or any other accredited forensic institution as this Hon'ble Court may deem appropriate to conduct a scientific voice analysis of the audio recordings annexed in the USB (Annexure P P-4),
4), the files in it marked as Annexure P-4A 4A and P P-4B, to determine:
Whether the voice is AI-generated generated or that of a real human speaker;
If real, whether it reflects impersonation using voice voice-morphing morphing or voice cloning technology; and If not impersonation, whether ether the voice corresponds to tha thatt of the police officer featured in the video interview annexed as Annexure P-4C."
(iii) Vide order dated 17.07.2025 (hereinafter referred to as '17.07.2025 17.07.2025 PIL order'), order , a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the PIL by directing thus:
"1. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed raising several issues, but in essentiality the grievance is that certain offences involving moral turpitude have been committed and despite the petitioner having made efforts to raise grievance before various State Authorities as well as Punjab State Commission for Women, in that regard Police has not taken any action for registration of FIR.
2. The State has filed an affidavit stating that the complaint filed before the Director General of Police, Punjab is pending consideration.
3. Be that as it may, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has ample provisions providing alternative statutory remedy under Sections 156(3) read with Section 190 and 200 (Sections 175 and 223 of Bharati Bharatiya ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), which have not been availed, in the present case.
7 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2025 10:58:34 ::: CRM-M-27602 27602-2025 (O&M) 8
4. If the offences, alleged by the petitioner are cognizable, we have no manner of doubt that concerned jurisdictional Magistrate/Special Court, if approached, shall proceed proceed in accordance with law.
5. It is made clear that we have neither gone into the issue of maintainability of the subject matter nor into the merits of the allegations.
6. Petition stands disposed of accordingly with aforesaid liberty.
liberty."
(iv) The petitioner (herein) preferred a review petition as well in the PIL which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 26.08.2025 (hereinafter referred to as '26.08.2025 '26.08.2025 PIL order order').
(v) The petitioner (herein) filed an application bearing No.CRM-- 51794-2025, 2025, substantive prayer(s) made wherein reads thus:
"xxx xxx xxx xxx
C) Also for ascertaining the veracity of the Audio/ video attached vide
Annexure P-14.
P
D) Also for conducting an in-depth
depth and scientific investigation into the alleged conspiracies which had been hatched by Mr Swapan Sharma, IPS presently posted as Commissioner of Police, Ms Vibha Rana, JMIC Ludhiana (presently suspended), the Respondent No 5 and others"
It is in the above backdrop that the present petition has come up for final adjudication before this Court.
3. Petitioner (who has appeared in person) has argued that the impugned order has been passed in derogation of the powers vested in the Magisterial Court, especially, as the said Court has assumed the jurisdiction of a Constitutional Court. The petitioner has further argued that one senior IPS hatched a conspiracy with others and appears to have used influence in having the impugned order passed. The petitioner has further submitted that 8 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2025 10:58:34 ::: CRM-M-27602 27602-2025 (O&M) 9 the impugned order impinges upon the fundamental right of free speech and expression and is a ploy deployed by unscrupulous elements so as to thwart the voice of conscious citizens. The petitioner has further argued that the impugned order has been passed, in ex-part parte mode, without affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioner herein. The petitioner has further submitted that the petition in hand raises multiple questions of public importance and relevance. The petitioner has further submitted that the impugned order suffers from vice of lack of jurisdiction as also is not based on correct appreciation of facts/law.
On these grounds, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.
4. Short reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 4 by way of affidavit of Sarbjit Singh, IPS, Assitant Inspector General of Police, Litigation, Bureau of Investigation, Punjab, Chandigarh, relevant whereof ereof reads as under:
"4. That the Learned Magistrate's order dated 07.04.2025 was an interim order passed on an application under the Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, read with Section 90 of the BNSS, 2023. Pursuant to this interim order, notices were issued Meta Platforms, Twitter and YouTube, who continue to appear before the learned earned Trial Court. It is humbly submitted that in the following order, the learned Magistrate also granted express liberty to the complainant to implead any suspected person if identified. Hence, the allegation ion of the petitioner that no notice was issued or that there was a violation of natural justice is wrong and denied.
5. That the petitioner himself had earlier filed CWP (PIL) No. 98 of 2025 on similar allegations. This Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 05.05.2025, 5.05.2025, disposed of the said PIL with an observation that the 9 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2025 10:58:34 ::: CRM-M-27602 27602-2025 (O&M) 10 petitioner was at liberty to avail remedies before the competent Magistrate. This pronouncement of this Hon'ble Court makes it clear that the application decided by the Learned Magistrate on 07.04.2025 was within the proper jurisdiction and in accordance with law. It is therefore contradictory for the petitioner to now allege that Learned Magistrate's order was illegal or arbitrary. This order of the Hon'ble Court itself demonstrates that the petitioner was required to pursue remedies before the Learned Magistrate, and the present attempt to again challenge the Magistrate's order is nothing but forum shopping and abuse of process. The filing of the present petition, notwithstanding the disposal of the PIL, amounts to parallel litigation and an abuse of process.
6. That the answering respondent reiterate that they had no independent role in the matter beyond ensuring compliance of the judicial orders passed by the Learned Magistrate. The suggesti suggestion on that the State or Cyber Crime Division acted arbitrarily or with mala fides is emphatically denied.
7. That it is also submitted that no communication has been issued by the answering respondent after the stay order dated 22.04.2025. The petitioner himself himself admits in Annexure P P-9 9 that the notice dated 26.06.2025 was sent directly tly by Twitter/X, and that it specifically referred to the interim order of this Hon'ble Court. This confirms that no post post-stay stay action is attributable to the answering respondent.
8. That the petition is otherwise founded upon alleged audio recordings of uncertain, unverified, and unauthenticated origin, no chain of custody and unsupported by any metadata, hash value or device particulars. The attempt to draw sweeping allegations, against institutions or officers, on the strength of such material is speculative and misleading.
9. That allegations of conspiracy, collusion, mala fides or undue influence attributed to the answering respondent are specifically denied. The answering respondent ondent have acted bona fide, strictly within law, and only in obedience to judicial orders."
"
Learned State counsel has raised submissions in tandem with the above reply and has sought for dismissal of the petition in hand.
10 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2025 10:58:34 ::: CRM-M-27602 27602-2025 (O&M) 11
5. Learned counsel appearing ng for respondent No.2 has submitted that the steps have been taken by respondent No.2, in accordance with the direction(s) issued vide impugned order and no action has been taken by respondent No.2 on its own volition. It has, thus, been submitted that tthe he respondent No.2 is only complying with the direction(s) issued vide the impugned order.
order
6. A short reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.5. Learned counsel appearing on his behalf, raising submissions in consonance with the said short reply, reply, has raised a preliminary objection regarding the locus standi for filing and maintaining the petition in hand. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner (herein) had filed the PIL for similar relief which stands declined and, thus, the peti petitioner tioner has misused the process of law by filing the petition in hand. It has been further urged that even the review petition filed by the petitioner (herein) qua the PIL stands declined. Hence, dismissal of petition in hand is sought for.
7. I have heard ard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the record.
8. The preliminary core issue that arises for cogitation in the petition in hand is the maintainability and/or desirability to entertain the petition in hand in facts/circumstances thereof.
11 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2025 10:58:34 ::: CRM-M-27602 27602-2025 (O&M) 12
9. Before proceeding further, it would be germane to delve into the nature, scope and ambit of powers of the High Court under Section 528 8 of BNSS, 2023.
2023
Inherent powers of the High Court are powers which are incidental replete powers, which if did not so exist, the Court would be obliged to sit still and helplessly see the process of law and Courts being abused for the purposes of injustice. In other words; such power(s) is intrinsic to the High Court, it is its very li life-blood, blood, its very essence, its immanent attribute. Without such power(s), the High Court would have a form but lack the substance. These powers of the High Court, hence, deserve to be construed with the widest possible amplitude. These inherent powers are in consonance with the nature of the High Court which ought to be, and has in fact been, invested with power(s) to maintain its authority to prevent the process of law/Courts being obstructed or abused. It is a trite posit of jurisprudence that though the laws attempt to deal with all cases that may arise, the infinite variety of circumstances which shape events and the imperfections of language make it impossible to lay down provisions capable of governing every case, which, in fact, arise. The High Court which exists for the furtherance of justice in an indefatigable manner, should therefore, have unfettered power(s) to deal with situations which, though not expressly provided for by the law, need to be dealt with, to prevent injustice or the abuse of the process of law and Courts. The maxim, namely, "quando quando 12 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2025 10:58:34 ::: CRM-M-27602 27602-2025 (O&M) 13 lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsa, esse non potest" (when the law gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without which the thing itself cannot exi exist) st) also signifies that the inherent powers of the High Court are all such powers which are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice. Further, the maxim "ex debito justitiae" stipulates that such powers are given to do real and substantial justice, for which purpose alone, the High Court exists. Hence, the powers under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023,, are aimed at preserving the inherent powers of a High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The juridical basis of these plenary power(s) is the authority; in fact the seminal duty and responsibility of the High Court; to uphold, to protect and to fulfil the judicial function of administering administering justice, in accordance with the law, in a regular, orderly and effective manner. In other words; Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 reflects peerless powers, which a High Court may draw upon as necessary, whenever it is just and equitable to do so; in particular, to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to prevent vexation or oppression, to do justice nay substantial justice between the parties and to secure the ends of justice.
9.1. However, in the realm of inherent jurisdiction, a fundamental dichotomy my exists between the 'maintainability of a petition' and the 'desirability of entertaining a petition.. To say, by way of simile,, the 13 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2025 10:58:34 ::: CRM-M-27602 27602-2025 (O&M) 14 distinction is as stark and irreconcilable as that between chalk and cheese. Maintainability serves as a jurisdictional threshold, reshold, an inquiry into whether the Court possesses the jurisdiction to receive the lis for adjudication. It is a concept premised upon the rigid scaffolding of statutory provisions and administrative rules (framed by the concerned High Court), acting as a gatekeeper that determines whether a cause of action satisfies the formal requirements of law. When a petition is found wanting on this aspect, the objection goes to the very root of the matter, rendering court incapable of even entertaining the petition. However, once this threshold is crossed, the court is confronted with the more nuanced question of 'entertainability of a petition', which is governed by the discretion of the Court, to be exercised keeping in mind the entire factual conspectus and prevailing milieu.
This distinction assumes greater significance when the court is called upon pon to invoke its equitable/inherent powers. While a petition may survive the test of 'maintainability', it may, nonetheless, be found not conducive to be entertained if the grant of relief would, inter alia, subvert the principles of judicial propriety or erodes the foundations of judicial discipline.
10. Delving into the factual milieu of the case in hand, it is indubitably forthcoming that by way of the petition in hand, the petitioner seeks quashing/setting aside of the impugned order. The consequent order rder dated 11.04.2025, passed by the State Cyber Division, Punjab, is essentially 14 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2025 10:58:34 ::: CRM-M-27602 27602-2025 (O&M) 15 a consequence of the impugned order,, based and aimed at the compliance of the impugned order. Ergo, it is the impugned order which is the linchpin of the petition in hand. Pertinently, a perusal of the averments made by the petitioner (herein) in the PIL indubitably reflect that various averments have been made in the PIL as regards the veracity of the impugned order.. Even in the questions of law formulated/raised by the pe petitioner titioner (herein) in the said PIL,, a specific question of law has been framed regarding the veracity etc. of the impugned order.
order A copy of the impugned order has also been annexed with the PIL.
PIL. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that there is no specific prayer(s) made in the PIL as regards setting setting-aside/quashing aside/quashing of the impugned order.
order Ergo, upon examination of pleadings contained in the PIL, it is indubitably reflected that the veracity of the impugned order has been agitated within the four corners corn of the PIL. While the formal prayer for Certiorari (seeking quashing/setting aside of the impugned order)) may have been omitted, the gravamen of the pleadings, including the specific question of law adumbrated therein, reflect that the same cause has bbeen een espoused therein, by explicitly assailing the veracity of the impugned order. 10.1. Further, the petitioner has brought forth forth,, into pleading of the petition in hand, hand the prayer(s) made in the PIL and has also disclosed factum of filing of the PIL but has not brought forth the averments contained in the PIL raising challenge to the veracity of the impugned order.. Furthermore, juxtaposing the prayer made in the Miscellaneous application (CRM (CRM-51794--
15 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2025 10:58:34 ::: CRM-M-27602 27602-2025 (O&M) 16 2025 025 filed in the petition in hand) with the prayer(s) made in the PIL leaves es no doubt that these are overlapping. It is not in dispute and it is rather been conceded before this Court that the 17.07.2025 PIL order as also 2.08.2025 PIL order have not been challenged. In other words, the same ha have attained finality. A perusal of the 17.07.2025 PIL order clearly reflects that the Hon'ble Division Bench has afforded liberty to the petitioner for taking alternative remedy. Pertinently, where liberty has been reserved to approach the competent jurisdictional magistrate, it would be supererogatory, if not legally impermissible, for this Court to further ratiocinate upon the somewhat exact cause of action. In other words, the petition in hand,, may, in stricto-sensu sensu satisfy the technical requirements of maintainability, however, this Court does not find it conducive to exercise its inherent jurisdiction in light of the factual milieu of the case at hand, and the subsisting liberty y reserved by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide 17.07.2025 PIL order. 10.2. It is, however, imperative to clarify that this Court has not delved into the merits of the veracity of the impugned order and the legal and factual tenability of the same is being kept open open,, for determination. It is being underscored that refusal to entertain the petition in hand is a matter of procedural propriety rather than an opinion upon the merits thereof.
11. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual milieu of the petition ion in hand; especially the averments made in the PIL regarding veracity of the impugned order, order, the liberty afforded to the petitioner to avail alternative 16 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2025 10:58:34 ::: CRM-M-27602 27602-2025 (O&M) 17 remedy in the order dated 17.07.2025 PIL order order, 26.08.2025 PIL order dismissing the review petition thereagainst & the overlapping nature of prayer(s) made in CRM-51794-2025 CRM 2025 filed in the petition in hand vis.-a-vis.
vis.
the prayer(s) in the PIL;; this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS. Ergo, this Court find that petition in hand ought not to be entertained by this Court.
In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:
(i) The petition in hand is dismissed reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner (herein) to file application(s), in including cluding but not limited to, impleadment etc. before the concerned Magisterial Court.
(ii) It is clarified that, that, while adjudicating the petition in hand,, this Court has not delved into the merits/veracity of the impugned order order.
(iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE December 22, 22 2025 Ajay Whether ether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: Yes 17 of 17 ::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2025 10:58:34 :::