POCSO Act – Rape of Minor – Stepfather – Life Imprisonment – Accused repeatedly raped his 13-year-old stepdaughter after threatening her and her mother with a knife – Incident occurred early morning on 02.04.2018 – Victim lodged prompt FIR, examined as PW3 – Medical evidence revealed fresh hymenal tear and knife wounds – Held: Testimony of PW3 consistent, credible, and supported by medical and documentary evidence – Conviction under Sections 376(2)(f)(n) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act affirmed – Sentence of life imprisonment for remainder of natural life upheld [Paras 2–3, 7–10, 14–19].

Criminal Trial – Sole Testimony of Victim – Evidentiary Value – PW3 deposed clearly and consistently regarding multiple instances of rape by stepfather – Withstood cross-examination without contradictions or omissions – Medical evidence corroborated injuries – Held: Victim's uncorroborated testimony sufficient for conviction where it inspires confidence – No legal requirement for corroboration if prosecutrix is found reliable [Paras 11–14].

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act – Section 29 – Presumption and Burden of Proof – Once foundational facts established regarding age, sexual act, and identity of accused, presumption under Section 29 applies – Accused failed to rebut presumption even by preponderance of probabilities – Held: Statutory presumption stands unrebutted – Conviction legally sustainable [Paras 16–17].

Hostile Witness – Victim’s Mother – Mother (PW12) turned hostile but admitted taking victim to police and fear of accused – Her hostility found immaterial as victim’s testimony independently credible and corroborated – Held: Hostile testimony of PW12 does not dent prosecution case – Court right in relying on victim’s version [Paras 9, 15].

Sentencing – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault by Guardian – Abuse of Trust – Sentence Proportionate – Accused was stepfather and guardian – Act committed after placing child and her mother in fear of death – Held: Crime aggravated by breach of fiduciary relationship – Sentence of imprisonment for remainder of natural life under Section 376(2)(f)(n) IPC appropriate – No separate sentence needed under POCSO due to Section 42 [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 324, 506(ii), and 376(2)(f)(n) IPC and Section 6 read with Section 5(l)(n) of POCSO Act confirmed – Life sentence for remainder of natural life upheld – No interference warranted with findings or sentence imposed by Special Court.

Revenue Law – Private Lease under Section 94 – Locus Standi – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner, who was a rival applicant for IOCL dealership, challenged a private lease deed executed under Section 94 by alleging it was contrary to permitted use under the Code – Held: Petitioner is neither lessor nor lessee, nor owner or co-sharer of the land, and thus has no locus standi to seek cancellation of the lease – Mere participation in dealership process does not confer enforceable legal interest in the land [Paras 3, 9–11, 15].

UP Revenue Code – Section 94 – Scope and Applicability – Lease for IOCL Outlet – Lease executed for retail outlet held to be a private lease under Section 94 – Court rejected contention that such lease was void under Section 104 – Held: Section 105(e) specifically excludes leases under Section 94 from consequences of void transfer – Sections 104, 105 and Rule 103 apply only to transfers in violation of Code by bhumidhar involving State land, not private leases [Paras 4–5, 10].

Declaratory Relief – Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code – Interpretation – Court held that only persons claiming to be bhumidhar or asami can file declaratory suits, including suits seeking cancellation of lease – Petitioner having no right, title or interest in the land cannot invoke Section 144 or challenge the lease instrument [Paras 6, 12].

Interpretation of Statutes – Harmonious Reading – Sections 94, 104, 105 and Rule 103 – Court harmoniously construed that lease under Section 94 is governed solely by terms agreed between lessor and lessee – Rule 103 procedures for void transfers not applicable due to statutory exclusion under Section 105(e) [Paras 5, 10].

Procedural Law – Rule 186 – Inapplicability without Locus – Court held that invocation of Rule 186 (regarding non-application of Civil Procedure Code) is irrelevant when the petitioner lacks locus to maintain proceedings against a private lease [Para 16].

Alternative Remedy – Challenge to IOCL Dealership – Court clarified that the petitioner is not without remedy – Any grievance regarding dealership allotment, including lease legality, can be raised before competent forum in IOCL process – But such remedy does not justify locus to cancel private lease deed [Para 14].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Impugned orders of Sub-Divisional Officer and Revisional Court upheld – Petitioner found to lack locus standi to challenge private lease deed under Section 94 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 [Paras 17–18].

Town Planning – Master Plan – Correction in Land Use Map – Petitioners’ land shown as Green Zone-1 (G-1) despite being beyond 100 meters from Full Tank Level (FTL) of Fatehsagar Lake – Clause 5.6.2 of Master Plan defines G-1 as within 100 meters – Court finds no government notification or judicial declaration placing land in G-1 – Held: Erroneous classification in land use map must be corrected – Petitioners’ land falls under Green Zone-2 (G-2) [Paras 9.2, 10.7, 11.2, 12.4, 16] –

Urban Development – Administrative Conduct – Repeated reports by Udaipur Improvement Trust (UIT) and Town Planning officials since 2019 admitted drafting error and supported correction – Authorities initially undertook steps to amend Zonal Development Plan but later reversed stand without explanation – Court holds such conduct arbitrary and unjustified [Paras 10.6, 13.5, 14] –

Environmental Law – G-1 Zone and Public Interest – No evidence produced showing petitioners’ land falls within 100m eco-sensitive radius – Reliance on general environmental directions (e.g., Gulab Kothari case) misplaced where no factual basis exists – Observations of courts or policies must align with verified field data – Held: Petitioners not seeking change in planning policy but rectification of mapping error [Paras 11.1, 12.1, 12.3] –

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Article 300-A – Incorrect zoning depriving petitioners of lawful use of land (e.g., resort development permissible in G-2) – Court notes that administrative error cannot override constitutional protection – State directed to rectify map to prevent unjust deprivation [Paras 12.2, 16] –

Government Notifications and Zoning – Communication dated 16.09.2022 cited by State held not applicable to petitioners’ land – Later objections and decisions (meeting dated 28.10.2022 and letter dated 11.11.2022) recognized error and mandated correction – Recalling application by State/UIT rejected as misuse of process [Paras 13.3–13.6] –

Judicial Review – Scope – Court limits intervention in policy matters but steps in to rectify procedural impropriety and factual misrepresentation – Holds that where admitted error causes individual harm, court can mandate correction even in planning matters [Paras 8.2–8.4] –

Decision: SB CWP No. 18007/2022 allowed – State Government directed to correct land use map of Master Plan–2031 within one month – Necessary correction to Zonal Development Plan to follow – SB CWP No. 4675/2023 disposed of – UDA directed to inspect land’s distance from FTL and report to State within 15 days – If land is beyond G-1 radius and not covered by other restrictions, State shall make necessary corrections within one month thereafter [Paras 16–17].

Service Law – Recruitment Process – Reservation Policy – Horizontal Reservation Misapplied Vertically – Invalid Implementation of Ex-Servicemen Quota – Petitioners challenged recruitment to 303 posts of Security Guard (T&S Grade G) in Mahanadi Coalfields Limited – Court found that Ex-Servicemen reservation of 24.5% was applied vertically by adjusting candidates in General category instead of horizontally across all vertical categories – Held: Application of horizontal reservation must cut across SC/ST/OBC/General categories and not disturb overall vertical structure – Misapplication invalidated the recruitment process to that extent [Paras 6–19].

Reservation – Ceiling Limit – Breach of 50% Cap – Ex-Servicemen Quota Pushed Reservation to 74.5% – Petitioners argued inclusion of 24.5% Ex-Servicemen quota resulted in total reservation exceeding 50% ceiling laid down in Indra Sawhney – Court held that such reservation, being horizontal, should not have inflated vertical quota – Improper classification and adjustment led to excessive reservation, contrary to constitutional principles [Paras 4(ii), 9–10, 14–16].

Recruitment – Change in Criteria – Post-Advertisement Modification Not Permissible – Ex-Servicemen quota was not clearly mentioned in employment notification dated 19.02.2014 – Applying such quota retrospectively and without proper disclosure in advertisement violates fairness and transparency in recruitment – Held: Selection criteria cannot be altered mid-way unless compliant with law and advertisement terms [Paras 4(i), 20].

Equitable Relief – Regularization – No Displacement of Appointed Candidates – Creation of Supernumerary Posts Directed – Despite flaws in application of reservation, Court declined to displace already appointed Ex-Servicemen candidates – Held: Appointments made in good faith should not be disturbed – Directed reconsideration of petitioners’ candidature in fresh recruitment – Supernumerary posts to be created to absorb both groups without prejudice [Paras 21–27].

Recruitment Process – Judicial Approach – Balancing Legality with Equity – Relying on Ran Vijay Singh, Rajesh Kumar, and Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi, Court held that mistaken appointments should not result in termination if done in good faith – Instead, directed prospective corrective action and seniority protection for rightful candidates [Paras 22–25].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Selection process to be reviewed – Petitioners to be considered afresh – Existing appointees to retain posts under supernumerary category – Seniority of petitioners to be maintained over them – Entire exercise to be completed expeditiously [Paras 26–30].

Administrative Law – Blacklisting – Show Cause Notice – Violation of Natural Justice – Petitioner blacklisted and debarred from future tenders for three years and Performance Bank Guarantee forfeited on grounds of supplying non-standard quality drugs – Show cause and hearing notices failed to specify that blacklisting or debarment was proposed – No laboratory test reports or sample analysis data provided to petitioner despite repeated requests – Held: Non-disclosure of proposed action and denial of opportunity to contest findings violated principles of natural justice – Impugned order quashed [Paras 1, 5–7, 13–19].

Tender Contracts – Supply of Medicines – Alleged Breach – Respondents relied on Clause 24(C) of tender terms to impose penalty for supply of non-standard quality drugs and short supply – However, absence of specific mention of blacklist/debarment in notices and non-supply of relevant reports rendered the order legally unsustainable – Existence of penalty clause does not exempt requirement of specific notice for harsh measures like blacklisting [Paras 10, 14–17].

Judicial Review – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Availability of alternative remedy under Clause 25 of tender terms – Held: Writ maintainable in case of breach of natural justice principles – Availability of statutory appeal not a bar to writ jurisdiction in such cases [Para 20].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order of blacklisting and debarment dated 26/09/2025 set aside – Liberty granted to respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner [Paras 19–22].

Criminal Law – Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) – Quashing of Interlocutory Order – Petition filed seeking quashing of trial court order rejecting application under Section 311 CrPC for summoning record of another complaint case – Held: No perversity or illegality found in the impugned order warranting interference under inherent jurisdiction [Paras 1, 12–13].

Criminal Trial – Power to Summon or Recall Witness – Scope of Section 311 CrPC – Discretionary Power – Petitioner sought summoning of record of an entirely different complaint case to rely on alleged admissions – Trial court found that petitioner had ample opportunity earlier and application was filed at belated stage – Held: Power under Section 311 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly, with caution and only when evidence is essential for just decision of the case [Paras 8–10].

Stage of Trial – Final Arguments – Belated Application – Delay as Relevant Consideration – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act pending since 2017 – Defence evidence stage since 2019 – Application under Section 311 CrPC moved only at fag end of trial – Held: Unexplained delay militates against grant of relief and supports inference of attempt to delay proceedings [Paras 11–12].

Evidence – Summoning of Records of Another Case – Relevance and Necessity – Alleged testimony of power of attorney holder in separate proceedings – Trial court noted contradictions between application and submissions and absence of examination of such witness in the other case – Held: Summoning of such record not essential for just decision of present case [Paras 7, 11].

Abuse of Process – Section 311 CrPC – Safeguard Against Misuse – Court reiterated that provision cannot be used to derail proceedings or cause prejudice to opposite party – Held: Application rightly rejected to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 10, 13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 07.02.2025 upheld – Pending applications also dismissed [Para 14].

Partition Suit – Intestate Succession – Christian Law – Oral Family Settlement – Claim Rejected – Plaintiffs and defendant, children of deceased K.M. Marykutty, inherited her property including ‘MGM Lodge’ upon her intestate death – Defendant claimed exclusive right based on alleged oral family settlement and plea of adverse possession – Trial court rejected both claims and decreed ⅓ share to each heir – Held: No documentary or oral evidence to prove family settlement – Mere assertion without corroboration insufficient – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2–4, 6–8, 10].

Adverse Possession – Co-Ownership – No Proof of Ouster – Defendant claimed title over inherited property by adverse possession – Held: In case of co-ownership, burden is on party claiming adverse possession to prove ouster of others – Long possession not sufficient – No independent evidence of exclusion of other co-owners – Plea rightly rejected [Paras 9–10].

Oral Family Arrangement – Proof Required – Defendant alleged oral settlement occurred on 40th day after mother’s death – No supporting documents, no examination of independent witnesses, and no mutation or change in title records – Held: Oral family arrangement requires strict proof especially when it alters succession – Evidence wholly lacking – Trial court’s findings upheld [Paras 7–8].

Christian Succession – Equal Share – Application of Indian Succession Act – Parties being Christians, succession governed by Indian Succession Act – On intestate death, children equally inherit – In absence of proof of waiver or relinquishment, each child entitled to equal share – Held: ⅓ share rightly declared for each of the three siblings [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Preliminary decree for partition affirmed – Each party entitled to ⅓ share in plaint schedule property – No interference warranted with trial court’s findings.

Constitutional Law – Live-in Relationship – Right to Protection – Petitioners in consensual live-in relationships alleged threats to life from private individuals and sought police protection – Held: Right to cohabit without marriage is protected under Article 21 – Personal autonomy cannot be compromised by societal disapproval – Police directed to grant protection if petitioners are adults and living willingly [Paras 1–3, 22, 45–49, 51–52]

Live-in Relationships – Legality and Social Morality – Court held that live-in relationships, though not widely accepted socially, are not illegal or punishable under law – Such arrangements are not barred by any legislation and are protected by constitutional rights to life, liberty and equality [Paras 6–9, 18–21, 30–33, 45–48]

State Obligation – Protection under Article 21 – Rejected State's contention that police cannot protect non-marital couples – Observed that State is duty-bound to protect life and liberty irrespective of marital status – No justification to deny anticipatory protection where threat is genuine or credible [Paras 12–13, 22, 46]

Personal Autonomy – Right to Choose Partner – Emphasised that major individuals have full autonomy under Article 21 to choose life partners and live together – State or family cannot compel marriage or interfere – Morality cannot override legality [Paras 6–7, 22, 33, 48–49]

Presumption of Marriage – Long-term Cohabitation – As per Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 119(1) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, long-standing cohabitation gives rise to presumption of marriage – Ensures protection of women and children from such relationships [Para 50]

Judicial Precedent – Binding Nature – Court relied upon extensive Supreme Court and High Court rulings recognising live-in relationships and protecting individual choice – Distinguished the contrary view in Kiran Rawat as not binding and factually distinguishable [Paras 18–21, 24–33, 40–44]

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Petitioners declared free to live together peacefully – Police directed to provide protection upon verification of age and willingness – No coercive action to be taken unless FIR is registered – Petitioners may produce educational documents or undergo ossification test to prove majority if required [Paras 51–53]

Civil Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – Return of Plaint – Trial Court held after full trial that no part of cause of action arose within its jurisdiction and directed return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC – Trial Court found that offer, acceptance, payment, and dishonour of cheque occurred at Indore/Pithampur, and not at Malanpur where appellant’s factory was located – Held: Finding that trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction upheld based on evidence showing transaction was centered at Indore and Dhar districts [Paras 9–10].

Civil Procedure – Non-Compliance with Order 7 Rule 10-A CPC – Mandatory Procedure – Despite full trial and appearance of defendant, Trial Court returned plaint without intimating plaintiff or fixing date of appearance in transferee court – Held: Failure to follow mandatory procedure under Order 7 Rule 10-A CPC vitiated the order in part – Order of dismissal of suit unsustainable – Direction issued to Trial Court to return plaint in accordance with Order 7 Rule 10-A CPC and fix a date for appearance before competent court [Paras 11–16].

Civil Procedure – Suit Dismissed While Returning Plaint – Improper – Trial Court both dismissed the suit and returned the plaint, which is legally contradictory – Held: Where jurisdiction is lacking, suit cannot be dismissed on merits and must be returned for presentation before proper court following due procedure [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Finding on lack of territorial jurisdiction affirmed – Impugned order dated 18.02.2016 set aside to the extent it dismissed the suit – Trial Court directed to return plaint strictly in accordance with Order 7 Rule 10-A CPC and fix date for appearance before appropriate court – No order as to costs.