Discharge Petition – Criminal Conspiracy and Forgery – The petitioner, who was charged under Sections 120(B), 465, 468, 471, 472, 420 read with 34 of the IPC, sought discharge from the charges, arguing that the investigation was improperly conducted and that key documents were not subjected to forensic examination – Held: The court found that for the charge of conspiracy, direct evidence may not always be available and can be inferred from the totality of the case during trial – The trial court had found a prima facie case against the petitioner based on the materials submitted, and the rejection of the discharge application was upheld [Paras 13-14].

Role of Forensic Examination – Forgery Allegations – The petitioner contended that the documents allegedly forged were not forwarded for forensic examination, which is necessary in cases of forgery – Held: It is not a rule that in all cases of forgery, the documents must be sent for forensic examination – The court can compare and study the signatures and writings under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, and in this case, the trial court found sufficient material to proceed without the forensic report [Para 14].

Counter Affidavit – Legitimacy and Procedure – The petitioner argued that the counter affidavit was filed by the Holding Inspector and not signed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, thereby lacking legal authority – Held: The court rejected this contention, noting that the Assistant Public Prosecutor acknowledged the counter affidavit and submitted it before the Presiding Officer – The trial court had considered the petitioner’s grounds for discharge along with the charge sheet and materials, rendering the counter affidavit issue irrelevant [Paras 12, 14].

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petitions – The criminal revision petitions were dismissed, confirming the trial court’s order rejecting the discharge applications – The court held that there was no illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s decision, as a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner based on the statements and materials available in the charge sheet [Paras 14-16].

NDPS – Acquittal - Non-Compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act – Right to Search before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – The appellant was charged with possession of 535 grams of Methamphetamine – He argued that his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was violated as he was not properly informed of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer – Held: The court found that the search and seizure process did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act – The appellant was not given a written notice nor was any gazetted officer part of the team – Mere oral intimation was deemed insufficient, rendering the recovery of the illicit article suspect – The conviction based on this search was vitiated [Paras 6-9].

Violation of Section 52-A NDPS Act – Drawing of Samples – The appellant contended that the procedures under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act for drawing samples were not followed, and the samples were not taken in the presence of a Magistrate – Held: The court found a clear violation of Section 52-A of the Act and referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines in Union of India v. Mohanlal – The samples were taken in the hotel room without the supervision of a Magistrate, violating the mandatory process, and weakening the prosecution's case [Paras 12-14].

Statement under Section 67 NDPS Act – Admissibility – The appellant argued that his statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was obtained while in custody and was not voluntary – Held: Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, the court noted that such statements are in the nature of a confession and are inadmissible if they lead to no recovery – In this case, the statement had no evidentiary value as the recovery had already occurred before the statement was recorded [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Acquittal Due to Non-Compliance – The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions under Sections 42, 50, and 52-A of the NDPS Act – The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were set aside – The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the fine amount was ordered to be refunded – The appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case [Paras 16-17].

Public Employment – Selection Process – The petition seeks quashing of 10 marks allocated for personal interviews in the 'Van Mitra' recruitment under the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department – The Court held that the incorporation of interview marks was without expert body recommendations or valid reasoning – Noted that the State's earlier notification in 2017 abolished interviews for Class-III and IV posts, and the deviation in the 'Van Mitra' scheme was arbitrary and unjustified – Held that personal interview marks must be struck down from the selection criteria​.

Legitimate Expectation – Promissory Estoppel – The petitioner contended that the 2017 notification created a legitimate expectation that interviews for junior-level posts would be abolished – The Court agreed, noting that the State had deviated from its commitment without providing sufficient rationale, thus violating the principles of legitimate expectation and fairness​.

Decision: Petition allowed – The allocation of 10 marks for personal interviews in the 'Van Mitra' recruitment scheme is quashed – Selection to proceed without the interview component​.

Civil Procedure – Review Petition – Partition of Properties – Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – The applicants sought a review of the judgment passed in O.S.A. No. 261 of 1995, arguing that the Bishop Garden house and the Bombay furnished flat should not have been considered joint family properties in the partition suit, as they were self-acquired by the applicant – Held: The court found that the inclusion of the properties in paragraph 269 of the original judgment was incorrect and set aside the finding, holding that the Bishop Garden house and the Bombay flat were not part of the joint family properties and should not be included in the partition – The review was allowed, and the properties were excluded from partition [Paras 30-36].

Grounds for Review – Mistake Apparent on the Face of the Record – The court accepted the applicants' contention that paragraph 269 of the common judgment contained errors regarding the ownership of the disputed properties – Held: As the properties were not listed in the schedule of the partition suit and were established as self-acquired by the applicants, the judgment was reviewed to correct the mistake, and the relevant findings were set aside [Paras 12-22].

Decision:

The review application was allowed – Paragraph 269 of the common judgment dated 07.10.1994 in C.S. Nos. 188 of 1972, 366 of 1976, and 442 of 1983 was set aside – The Bishop Garden house and the Bombay flat were excluded from partition proceedings.

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Appeal filed by the State against the trial court's judgment acquitting the respondent of charges under Sections 307, 452, and 506 IPC – Prosecution’s case centered on the respondent’s alleged knife attack on the injured with intent to cause death – Trial court acquitted the accused, noting discrepancies in witness statements, lack of evidence regarding motive, and failure to explain injuries sustained by the accused – Appeal dismissed as trial court’s view was found to be a plausible conclusion based on the evidence [Paras 1-75].

Attempt to Murder – Evidentiary Gaps – Prosecution failed to explain multiple injuries sustained by the accused, leading to doubts regarding the sequence of events – Presence of blood-stained weapons without any blood found on the accused’s knives also raised suspicion – Material contradictions in witness testimonies, particularly about the presence of key witnesses at the crime scene, further weakened the prosecution's case [Paras 40-60].

Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases – Established legal principles reiterated that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if prosecution evidence is weak and contradictory – Trial court’s assessment that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt upheld by the High Court [Paras 65-75].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld.

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 166 – Compensation Claim – Involvement of vehicle in accident – Whether the car involved in the accident was correctly identified and whether the insurance company is liable – Held, the Tribunal correctly held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the Swift car by the respondent. Evidence from the claimants sufficiently proved the car's involvement on a balance of probabilities, even though the FIR initially reported the driver as unknown. The appeal by the insurance company, alleging collusion between the claimants and the driver, was dismissed due to lack of evidence – [Paras 5-17].

Negligence – Standard of Proof in Motor Vehicle Accident Claims – The standard of proof in a motor accident claim is based on the preponderance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt, unlike in criminal trials. Claimants sufficiently proved the accident was due to the negligence of the respondent driver – [Paras 14-17].

Decision:

FAO-646-2017 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. FAO-7529-2017 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement is dismissed as withdrawn.

CPC – Application for amendment of the reply to the eviction petition filed ten years after the original reply was dismissed by the Rent Controller – Held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence or any new discovery of facts that justified the amendment at such a late stage – The objections sought to be added were already covered in the original reply, making the amendment unnecessary – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 4-5].
Liberal Approach to Amendment – Not Applicable – Petitioner’s reliance on precedents advocating a liberal approach to amendments was misplaced – The proposed amendment did not meet the requirement of due diligence, and the issues were already framed based on the existing reply – Rent Controller's refusal to allow the amendment upheld [Paras 4(d)-5].
Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Parties directed to appear before the Rent Controller.
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 506(2), 114 IPC and Sections 3, 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the accused (father-in-law and mother-in-law) under Section 482 CrPC – The complainant filed a case alleging harassment after marriage, but the Court found the allegations to be general and unsubstantiated – The Court held that the complainants had falsely implicated the applicants in order to pressure the family into a settlement – Court observed the applicants, aged 90 and 80, had no involvement in the alleged offences [Paras 1-7, 17].

Abuse of Process – Court found that the FIR was an abuse of the legal process, aimed at harassment rather than the pursuit of justice – Referring to multiple precedents, including Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court emphasized caution in matrimonial disputes, especially when extended family members are implicated without specific evidence – It was noted that the marriage had dissolved via divorce, and there was no substantial proof of harassment against the in-laws [Paras 6-7, 13].

Decision – FIR Quashed – Held – The application under Section 482 CrPC was allowed – The Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners, ruling that their implication in the case was motivated by personal grievances rather than actual evidence of wrongdoing [Paras 15-17].

Criminal Law – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of defamation charges – Accusations against the petitioners (including the Chief Minister of Delhi) for imputing that BJP had orchestrated deletion of voter names from specific communities – The High Court examined the validity of summoning orders issued by the Magistrate and upheld by the Sessions Court – Court found that the statements made by the petitioners were prima facie defamatory, targeting a determinable and identifiable group (BJP and its Delhi Pradesh unit) – Court emphasized that political parties are identifiable entities under law, capable of being defamed – Held that the allegations against BJP were made without factual basis, potentially swaying public opinion, and harming BJP's reputation – The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. [Paras 14-33].

Defamation Law – Evaluation of Evidence for Defamation – The Court held that even though the initial evidence was derived from newspaper reports and video clippings (generally considered hearsay), it was supported by certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, making it admissible – Summoning orders were based on sufficient prima facie evidence, and the absence of witness testimony at the pre-summoning stage did not invalidate the summoning order – The scope of inquiry under Sections 202 and 204 Cr.P.C. was limited to determining if there was sufficient ground to proceed, not to ascertain the truth of the allegations conclusively – Reliance was placed on precedents that allowed the continuation of defamation proceedings even when initial evidence was not fully established at the pre-summoning stage – Petition dismissed. [Paras 23-26].

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – The High Court dismissed the petition, confirming the maintainability of defamation charges against the petitioners – The Court found that the tweets and public statements made by the petitioners were defamatory, particularly as they accused BJP of engaging in unethical practices without factual support – The petitioners' defense that their statements were made in good faith and for public good was reserved for trial – The Court emphasized that reputation, particularly of political entities, is protected under law, and defamatory imputations without factual basis cannot be shielded under the guise of free speech – The Court directed the continuation of proceedings before the Trial Court. [Paras 32-42].