Criminal Law – Inclusion of POCSO Charges – Petitioner challenged the rejection of her application for addition of Section 12 of the POCSO Act – Case initially filed under Sections 363 and 366A IPC for enticement of minor daughter – Trial Court dismissed inclusion of POCSO charges citing lack of sufficient material – High Court upheld the dismissal, confirming no evidence supporting POCSO charges [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Procedure – Section 216 Cr.P.C. – Court’s Power to Alter Charges – The Court may alter or add charges at any time before judgment – Requirement for material evidence to justify such alterations emphasized – High Court found no materials warranting the addition of Section 12 POCSO charges, supporting the Trial Court’s decision [Paras 6-8].

Facts of the Case – Victim enticed by accused, later married and living together – State submitted that the couple now leads a conjugal life – Victim was 13 years old at the time of offense – High Court noted lack of material evidence to support POCSO charges – Current charges under Sections 363/366A IPC deemed appropriate [Paras 2-4, 8].

Decision – Revision Application Dismissed – High Court dismissed the application for addition of POCSO charges – Directed return of case diary to the State’s counsel – No interference with lower court’s order required [Para 10-14].

Bail – Prolonged Detention – Applicant, in jail since 2017, failed to file for bail due to lack of resources and legal aid – Applicant nominated in 2005, arrested in 2017 – Bail application drafting inadequate – Court appoints amicus curiae – High Court Legal Services Committee to assist – District Judge to ensure all details provided to amicus curiae [Paras 1-7].

Legal Aid – Appointment of Amicus Curiae – Court notes applicant's lack of legal aid since arrest – Deficiencies in current legal representation – Appointment of Shri Rajiv Lochan Shukla as amicus curiae – High Court Legal Services Committee directed to assist – Urgency of matter emphasized [Paras 4-7].

Decision – Bail Application Deferred – Case adjourned to 19.07.2024 for further consideration – District Judge, Meerut, instructed to expedite provision of relevant details to amicus curiae – Court highlights procedural steps for ensuring applicant’s representation [Para 7].

Landlord and Tenant – Eviction – Arrears of Rent – Petitioner tenant failed to pay rent for over six months and ignored landlord’s notice demanding arrears – Landlord entitled to decree for possession under Section 12(3)(a) of Bombay Rent Act – Tenant's defence of non-receipt of notice and payment to another heir rejected – Notice considered duly served – Appeal dismissed, eviction decree upheld [Paras 1-30].

Fixation of Standard Rent – Application filed after prescribed period – Bombay Rent Act requires filing within one month of notice – Application rejected – Standard rent application cannot nullify decree for arrears of rent and eviction [Paras 26-33].

Service of Notice – Validity – Notice sent to tenant’s workplace and marked as refused – Held valid service – Tenant had prior knowledge of landlord’s ownership and obligation to pay rent [Paras 18-20].

Tenant's Obligations – Arrears of Rent – Tenant failed to deposit arrears during pendency of suit – Triple default: pre-suit, post-suit, and during suit – No protection under Section 12(3)(b) for non-compliance [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld – Tenant's eviction affirmed – Application for fixation of standard rent dismissed as untimely and ineffective in negating default [Paras 33-34].

Landlord Definition – Interpretation – Under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, the term "landlord" includes a trustee or guardian receiving rent for premises on behalf of another person. The court concluded that Pradeep Kumar Gupta, as Secretary of Seth Girwar Lal Pyare Lal Shiksha Trust, fits within this definition, and the application under Section 10 was properly filed by the Trust through him [Paras 1, 18-19].

Application of CPC – Limited Scope – The court determined that Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is not applicable in proceedings before the Rent Authority or Rent Tribunal as per Section 33 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, which excludes the application of CPC except for specific provisions. The objections raised under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC can be addressed in the written statement [Paras 20-25].

Rent Authority Procedure – Natural Justice – The Rent Authority is guided by principles of natural justice and can regulate its own procedure. The court found no patent illegality in the Rent Authority's order allowing objections to be raised in the written statement rather than upfront [Paras 26-30].

Decision: The petitions are dismissed. The Rent Authority is directed to expedite the decision on the application under Section 10 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 within sixty days from the date of service of the court's order [Paras 31-33].

Criminal Law – Bail – Dowry Death – Petitioner sought bail in case registered for dowry harassment and death – FIR based on statements from deceased’s family alleging dowry demands and harassment – Charge-sheet filed, petitioner in custody for over a year – No evidence of petitioner’s ability to tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses – Bail granted with conditions to ensure petitioner’s availability for trial and prevent tampering with evidence [Paras 1-16].

Bail Conditions – Bail granted subject to furnishing security, attendance at police station, and non-interference with witnesses – Conditions imposed to mitigate risk of absconding and ensure trial proceedings are not hindered [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner to furnish security of ₹50,000 with two sureties – Petitioner not to leave NCT of Delhi without court permission – Regular attendance at police station mandated – Non-interference with witnesses and trial proceedings ensured through stringent conditions [Paras 14-16].

Trademark Law – Cancellation – Procedural Error – Appellant sought cancellation of respondent's trademark ‘CLARIWASH’ on grounds of deceptive similarity and procedural errors in the examination report – Claimed prior use of ‘CLARI’ formative trademarks – Trial court dismissed cancellation petition – On appeal, High Court held procedural errors alone insufficient for cancellation unless registration violates substantive provisions of the Act – No deceptive similarity found between ‘CLARIWASH’ and appellant’s trademarks ‘CLARI-FI’ and ‘CLARIMOIST’ – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-45].

Trademark Similarity – Examination of Competing Trademarks – Marks must be considered as a whole – Appellant's claim of family of ‘CLARI’ formative trademarks not established at material time – No prima facie similarity between ‘CLARIWASH’ and appellant’s trademarks [Paras 30-37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No grounds to interfere with the trial court's judgment – Registration of respondent's trademark upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 43-45].

Criminal Law – Negligent Driving – Petitioner convicted under Section 304-A IPC and relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act for causing death by negligent driving – Trial court and appellate court affirmed conviction – Revision court considered the petitioner's age, lack of mens rea, and absence of antecedents – Highlighted the potential of the petitioner’s future being ruined by the conviction stigma – Applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, supporting the prosecution [Paras 1-17].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability – Court analyzed the application of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Emphasized the discretion of courts to apply probation in cases involving young, first-time offenders with bright futures – Cited relevant precedents where probation was granted in similar circumstances [Paras 12-17].

Res ipsa loquitur – Doctrine Application – Prosecution's case supported by the doctrine, indicating the accident speaks for itself regarding the petitioner’s negligence – Both courts established petitioner’s negligent driving was the cause of death [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Criminal revision application partly allowed – Conviction maintained, but sentence suspended with the petitioner released on probation for one year – Petitioner to enter into a bond for maintaining peace and good behavior – Fine paid under Motor Vehicles Act forfeited to the government; fine under Section 304-A IPC to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased [Para 17].

Conditional Attachment – Acceptance of Security – Appeal against Sub Court’s decision accepting security of immovable property for lifting conditional attachment – Property in question recorded as paddy land – Appellant's concern about insufficient value and legal issues with security offered – Sub Court’s order set aside due to unresolved issues about property’s classification and value [Paras 1-7].

Revenue Records – Correction and Legal Status – Dispute over property recorded as paddy land in revenue records – 1st defendant's efforts to correct records – Court emphasizes need for proper classification before accepting property as security – Future applications permitted upon correction of records [Paras 4-7].

Decision – Orders Set Aside – Conditional attachment over plaint A schedule property to continue until sufficient security is provided – 1st defendant allowed to file fresh application if revenue records are corrected – Emphasis on current insufficiency of security due to legal and factual uncertainties [Para 7].

Anticipatory Bail – Conditions and Considerations – The applicant, aged 74, sought anticipatory bail in relation to an FIR filed under various sections of the IPC involving allegations of forgery and conspiracy. The court considered the applicant's age, the civil nature of the underlying dispute, the delayed filing of the FIR, and the applicant's role as an attesting witness. The court emphasized that anticipatory bail can be granted irrespective of the nature of the offences unless barred by statute and reaffirmed the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [Paras 1-21].

Non-Disclosure and Its Impact – The court addressed the issue of non-disclosure of prior writ petition and Section 482 application by the applicant. It held that while non-disclosure of material facts can be fatal in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it does not apply with the same rigor to statutory powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. [Paras 12-20].

Conditions for Anticipatory Bail – The court imposed conditions for the grant of anticipatory bail, including executing a bond, not committing similar offences, not making inducements, and not leaving India without prior permission of the court [Para 22].

Decision: The application for anticipatory bail is allowed. The applicant is granted anticipatory bail until the conclusion of the trial, subject to conditions [Para 22].