Section 295A of IPC – Outrage of Religious Feelings – Shouting ‘Jai Sriram’ in a Mosque – Not Outrageous – The petitioners were accused of entering a mosque and shouting ‘Jai Sriram’ with the intent of disrupting communal harmony. The court held that shouting ‘Jai Sriram’ does not constitute an insult or malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings under Section 295A of the IPC, particularly when there is no disruption of public order or deliberate insult to religious beliefs – Petitioners' actions did not meet the threshold for criminal offense under the said section [Paras 5-6].

Criminal Intimidation under Section 506 of IPC – Ingredients Not Established – The complaint alleged that the petitioners threatened the mosque members. However, the court found that the complaint did not specify any actionable threats or fear of harm that would amount to criminal intimidation under Section 506. The lack of specific allegations led the court to dismiss this charge [Paras 6-7].

Abuse of Process – Quashing of FIR – No Prima Facie Case – The court observed that none of the alleged acts committed by the petitioners met the essential ingredients required for the offenses under Sections 447, 295A, 505, or 506 IPC. Continuing the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. – The petition was allowed, and the FIR and all related proceedings were quashed [Paras 7-8].

Decision:

The writ petition was allowed, and the entire proceedings in Crime No. 86 of 2023 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, were quashed.

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Complaint for dishonor of cheques under Section 138 of the NI Act – The petitioner, residing outside the territorial jurisdiction, argued that the Magistrate should have conducted an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before issuing summons – Held: Under Section 145 of the NI Act, evidence of the complainant can be given by affidavit, which streamlines the trial process. The Magistrate’s role is to decide whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. If evidence supports the complaint, an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC is not mandatory for public servants – Complaint supported by an affidavit is sufficient for issuing process [Paras 3c, 3e, 5a, 9].

Criminal Procedure – Section 202 CrPC – Applicability in NI Act Cases – Whether the amendment of Section 202 CrPC mandates an inquiry before issuing process to an accused residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Court – Held: Section 202 CrPC is not mandatory in complaints under Section 138 NI Act supported by an affidavit, especially when filed by a public servant – No infirmity found in the orders of the Magistrate or Sessions Judge rejecting the application for an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC [Paras 4, 4a, 4c, 9].

Decision: Criminal Revision Application Dismissed – The order passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the Learned Chief Judge was affirmed – The court upheld the validity of the summons issued to the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act without a mandatory inquiry under Section 202 CrPC – The Magistrate had examined the complaint and accompanying affidavit, and therefore, no further inquiry was required before issuing process [Paras 3d, 5, 9].

Arbitration Law – Section 34 Challenge – Application to set aside arbitral award – The court set aside the arbitral award, finding that the agreements were hit by Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and hence incapable of being specifically enforced – The arbitrator had granted specific performance despite the fact that the lands were agricultural and the claimant was a non-agriculturist, requiring prior permission from the Collector – Held: Award was vitiated by patent illegality and in conflict with the public policy of India [Paras 64-70, 81-84].

Limitation – Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963 – The claim for specific performance was held to be time-barred – The court rejected the arbitrator's finding that the cause of action arose upon publication of a public notice canceling the Power of Attorney – It held that the limitation period started from the expiry of six months stipulated in the agreement for obtaining non-agricultural permission – Held: The claim was barred by limitation [Paras 88-92].

Arbitrator's Independence and Impartiality – Section 12 of Arbitration Act, 1996 – Failure to disclose relationship – The court found justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator, who had close ties with the Director of the claimant company, possessing 51% stake – The arbitrator attended personal family functions and had a longstanding professional relationship with the Director – Held: Arbitrator failed to disclose these facts under Section 12, vitiating the award due to bias [Paras 93-103].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The civil court's order under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, setting aside the arbitral award, was upheld – The award was found to be vitiated by patent illegality, limitation bar, and violation of the principles of independence and impartiality in arbitration [Paras 104-105].

Educational Law – Reservation for Armed Forces Personnel (CW Category) – Issuance and Verification of ECC – The appellant’s name was initially included in the provisional list for admission to undergraduate medical courses under the CW category but was later removed based on the cancellation of the ECC issued by the Kendriya Sainik Board (KSB) – The ECC was re-verified by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), and the appellant was eligible as per the verification – Held: The removal of the appellant’s name from the list was legally unsustainable. The ECC issued by the Officer-in-Charge Record Office and verified by the MHA was genuine and authenticated – The appellant's removal from the provisional list due to administrative errors was improper ​.

Legal Principle – Complete Justice – Creation of Supernumerary Seat – The Court, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2020) 17 SCC 465, acknowledged that in exceptional circumstances, courts could direct the creation of additional seats to ensure justice – Held: In light of the appellant's merit and administrative lapses leading to her exclusion, the Court directed the creation of a supernumerary seat to be allotted to the appellant within ten days ​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29th August 2024 is modified – The respondent no.1/DU and respondent no.4/MCC are directed to either increase the number of seats by one in the CW category or create a supernumerary seat for the appellant – This exercise is to be carried out within ten days from the date of the order ​.

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide – Section 304 Part II IPC – Defense of Private Defense – The appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC for pelting stones at the deceased, resulting in fatal injuries. The incident occurred during a scuffle over a monetary dispute where the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and attempted to snatch money from the appellant – Held: The appellant had the right to private defense as he was protecting himself and his property when the deceased, under the influence of alcohol, initiated an attack – The appellant did not exceed the right of private defense by pelting stones, as he had initially tried to avoid confrontation by running away from the scene – Consequently, the appellant's conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC was set aside, and he was acquitted of all charges [Paras 21-25]​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The judgment and sentence dated 20.01.2001 by the ASJ Kukshi District Dhar in S.T. No.89/2000 is set aside – The appellant is acquitted of all charges under Section 304 Part II IPC – His bail bonds are discharged, and he is no longer required in the present case [Paras 29-30]​.

Criminal Law – Transit Anticipatory Bail – Sought for offences under Sections 498A, 323, and 504 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – The petitioners filed for anticipatory bail in Karnataka while the case was registered in Uttar Pradesh – Held: Granted transit anticipatory bail for three weeks to enable petitioners to seek anticipatory bail from the jurisdictional court in Uttar Pradesh. Interim protection was necessary to allow the petitioners to apply for regular bail and to appear in the Habeas Corpus proceedings before the Allahabad High Court [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioners granted transit anticipatory bail for a period of three weeks – Directed to execute a personal bond for ₹100,000 each with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer – Petitioners ordered not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses [Paras 9-11].

Anticipatory Bail – Conditions Imposed – Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Freedom of Press – The petitioner, a journalist and managing editor of a YouTube news channel, was granted anticipatory bail with a condition that he should not publish news related to the death of Bishop K.P. Yohannan – Held: The condition restricting the petitioner’s journalistic freedom was unreasonable – The right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution cannot be curtailed as part of a bail condition unless justified under Article 19(2) – The Court deleted the condition restraining the petitioner from airing news on the subject, observing that such a condition amounts to a gag order, which is disproportionate and violates the petitioner’s fundamental rights [Paras 12-17].

Criminal Procedure – Approver – Bail Granted – The petitioner, an approver in a case involving offenses under Section 302 IPC, sought bail after testifying in both the trial of the co-accused and a Court Martial – The trial court rejected the bail application based on Section 306(4)(b) of Cr.P.C., which mandates the detention of an approver until the termination of the trial – Held: The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has the jurisdiction to grant bail to an approver even before the culmination of the trial in exceptional cases – The petitioner had complied with the conditions of pardon by making full and true disclosure, and exceptional circumstances existed, including the petitioner’s health condition and the nearing completion of the trial – [Paras 17-25].

Natural Justice – Right to Fair Treatment – Release of Approver – An approver who fulfills the conditions of pardon should not be kept in custody if it would result in a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution – The detention of the petitioner after making a complete disclosure was found to be unnecessary, especially given his health issues and the lack of any role beyond accompanying the main accused to the crime scene – Held: Detaining the petitioner further would be unjust, and therefore, he was granted bail – [Paras 21-25].

Decision: Petition allowed – The petitioner is admitted to bail on the condition of furnishing a bail bond with one surety in the amount of ₹1,00,000 – He must not leave the limits of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission of the trial court and must not influence the prosecution witnesses – [Para 25].

Civil Procedure – Written Statement – Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC – Revision petition filed challenging the acceptance of a written statement beyond the stipulated 90 days – Plaintiff contended that the trial court erred in allowing the written statement without a formal application for condonation of delay – Held: The court cannot extend time for filing the written statement on its own, and an application for condonation is mandatory – Written statement filed after 30 days requires a valid application explaining the delay, in accordance with judicial precedents such as Salem Advocate Bar Association and Kailash v. Nanhku [Paras 6, 10, 12].

Judicial Discretion – Condonation of Delay – Written Statement Filing – Defendant filed the written statement late without seeking condonation of delay – The trial court accepted the written statement without recording reasons – Held: The trial court’s acceptance of the written statement without a condonation application violates Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, and the defendant must file an application explaining the delay [Paras 9, 10, 12].

Inherent Power of the Court – Article 227 of the Constitution – Plaintiff invoked Article 227 seeking judicial intervention against the trial court’s procedural lapses – Held: The inherent power of the Court under Article 227 allows rectification of procedural errors, and the trial court’s failure to follow due process in accepting the late written statement justifies interference [Paras 8, 11, 12].

Decision: Allowed – The order of the trial court dated 02.08.2023 accepting the written statement set aside – The respondent is granted liberty to file a written statement along with an application for condonation of delay – CRP(MD)No.1853 of 2024 closed as infructuous [Paras 13, 14].