Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Petition dismissed –

Petitioner charged under Sections 376 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021 – Allegations include stalking, rape, and forced conversion – Court declines to interfere with investigation given serious allegations and legislative intent to curtail societal malady [Paras 1-10].

Unlawful Religious Conversion – Legislative Purpose –

U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021 emphasized – New statute addressing societal issues – Court notes frequent interference in initial stages would undermine legislation’s purpose [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed –

Court finds no grounds to interfere with FIR – Petition fails – Legislative intent and societal context considered significant in decision [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Condonation of Delay – Criminal Miscellaneous Petition against Trial Court’s order condoning delay in filing complaint – Petitioners argued delay not justified and trial court failed to provide reasons – Trial Court’s order found to be non-speaking and lacking in cogent reasons – Held, condonation of delay requires detailed reasoning reflecting application of mind – Order quashed and matter remanded for fresh decision with proper reasoning.

Condonation of Delay – Analysis – Held – Trial Court must provide detailed reasoning for condonation of delay, reflecting proper application of mind – Order lacking such reasoning is unsustainable – Right to reason is indispensable for a sound judicial decision – Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh decision on condonation application.

Decision – Quashing of Non-Speaking Order – Trial Court’s order condoning delay set aside – Matter remanded for fresh decision with proper opportunity for parties to be heard – Order to be passed with cogent reasons in accordance with law.

Civil Procedure – Maintainability of Suit – Notice Requirement under Section 80 CPC – Second Appeal against the judgment of the lower appellate court, which dismissed the suit for lack of mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC – The suit was initially filed by plaintiffs seeking a declaration of ownership by adverse possession of agricultural land – Trial Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, but lower appellate court reversed this, citing non-compliance with Section 80 CPC – High Court upheld the decision of the lower appellate court, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the notice requirement under Section 80 CPC – Held, compliance with Section 80 CPC is a condition precedent for instituting a suit against the Government or public officers – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-13]

Mandatory Nature of Section 80 CPC – Analysis – Supreme Court precedents affirming the necessity of serving notice under Section 80 CPC before instituting a suit – Section 80 aims to provide the government a chance to address grievances outside of court – Non-compliance results in the suit being deemed not maintainable – Exceptions under Section 80(2) discussed, but the case at hand did not meet the criteria for such exceptions. [Para 9-13]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Court upheld the lower appellate court’s judgment dismissing the suit due to the absence of mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC – No error found in the lower appellate court’s application of law – Appeal dismissed with costs. [Para 13]

Criminal Procedure – Registration of FIR – Complaint Handling Post Cognizance – Petitioner challenged the order directing registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after the Magistrate recorded the complainant’s statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. – Held that once cognizance was taken by recording the statement, the Magistrate could not issue directions for FIR registration under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Such directions can only be issued at a pre-cognizance stage [Paras 1-10].

Procedure under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Emphasized that direction under Section 156(3) for FIR registration is not permissible post-cognizance by the Magistrate – Highlighted the Supreme Court’s stance in “M/S Sas Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Telangana” regarding the stages at which FIR directions can be issued [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Quashing of the order and FIR – Orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and consequent FIR quashed – Directed the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the law without requiring pre-process hearing from the accused [Paras 10-11].

Education Law – Promissory Estoppel – Legitimate Expectation – Return of Applications for Special Education Courses – RCI’s Decision – Judicial Review – Writ Petitions Against RCI Circulars

Representation and Reliance - Circulars issued by RCI invited fresh proposals from institutions for conducting special education courses for the academic session 2024-2025, including diploma and degree courses. The petitioners, acting on the representations, invested substantial resources to conform to RCI norms. Subsequently, RCI’s decision to return these proposals, based on a letter from the Ministry, was challenged as arbitrary and lacking legal justification. [Paras 1-23]

Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation - Held, RCI’s circulars amounted to a clear representation inducing petitioners to submit proposals and invest resources. The decision to resile from this representation without adequate justification or supervening public equity was not permissible. Petitioners could not restore status quo ante, making the initial representation irrevocable against RCI. [Paras 60-79]

Arbitrariness and Lack of Statutory Basis - The decision to return the proposals was based solely on a ministerial letter without due consideration by the Executive Committee of RCI. No statutory provision or amended regulation justified the return of applications for diploma and degree courses. The ongoing need for special educators further negated any public interest justification for the decision. [Paras 66-74]

NEP 2020 Considerations - The NEP 2020 recognized the urgent need for additional special educators, contradicting the rationale for not considering new proposals. Enhancing seats in existing institutions while refusing new proposals was inconsistent with the stated objectives of NEP 2020. [Paras 80-81]

Decision - The impugned circulars dated 4 January 2024 and 8 March 2024 were quashed to the extent they returned the petitioners’ applications for starting D.Ed.Spl.Ed. and B.Ed.Spl.Ed. courses. The RCI was directed to process the proposals in accordance with law. The challenge to the circular allowing enhancement of seats in existing institutions was dismissed. [Paras 83-85]

Criminal Law – Summoning and Cognizance Orders – Quashing of summoning and cognizance orders along with consequential orders due to lack of application of judicial mind and procedural irregularities – No evidence indicating the applicants intended to cause death or had knowledge their actions would result in death – Demolition leading to accidental death does not meet criteria for culpable homicide [Paras 1-20, 23-26].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Exercise of inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Applicants wrongfully implicated without substantial evidence – Police presence during incident with no preventive measures taken [Paras 27-38].

Legal Principles – Application of Mind – Magistrate’s duty to apply judicial mind and provide reasons in orders – Summoning orders without detailed reasoning or assessment of prima facie case liable to be quashed – Emphasis on careful scrutiny of allegations and evidence before issuing summons [Paras 29-33].

Decision – Application Allowed – Summoning and cognizance orders dated 30.03.2016, orders dated 11.01.2018 and 11.07.2018, and charge sheet dated 13.07.2015 quashed – Entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 16768 of 2016 set aside – Directions for trial court compliance [Paras 37-41].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. –

Allegations of dowry harassment and domestic violence – FIR against entire family of husband including those living separately – Specific allegations only against husband and parents – General, vague, and bald allegations against others – No prima facie case against distant relatives – Court cites Supreme Court's caution against roping in distant relatives without specific instances – FIR quashed for distant relatives – Continuance against husband and parents upheld [Paras 1-16].

Procedure under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Abuse of process – Emphasis on specific allegations for prosecution – Application of judgments from Supreme Court cases to ensure fair trial – General allegations insufficient to prosecute relatives without details – Court's intervention to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 10-14].

Decision: FIR quashed against petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 – Petition infructuous for petitioners Nos. 4 to 7 – Investigating Officer to proceed against petitioner No. 3 in accordance with law [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law - Acquittal for Murder - Government Appeal against trial court’s judgment acquitting accused of murder charges under Section 302/34 IPC - Trial court convicted accused for causing simple injuries under Section 323/34 IPC - Prosecution alleged that accused snatched a one-year-old child from her mother's lap and threw her on the ground, leading to her death - Post-mortem report indicated death due to shock and haemorrhage from a ruptured spleen with no external injuries - Prosecution witnesses' testimonies inconsistent and contradicted by medical evidence - Held, prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder - Acquittal for murder charges affirmed. [Paras 20-23, 36-39, 46-47]

Injury Causing - Conviction for Simple Injuries - Prosecution established that accused inflicted simple injuries on complainants during altercation - Medical evidence corroborated injuries consistent with blunt force trauma - Trial court’s finding of guilt under Section 323/34 IPC supported by consistent testimonies of injured witnesses and medical reports - Conviction for simple injuries upheld. [Paras 33-34, 48]

Procedural Aspects - Charges Framing - Discrepancy in charges framed by trial court noted - Separate charges for individual accused under Section 302 IPC and joint charges under Section 302/34 IPC - Alteration unexplained by prosecution - Emphasized importance of clarity in charges framing. [Para 45]

Decision - Dismissal of Government Appeal - Appeal challenging acquittal under Section 302/34 IPC dismissed - Trial court’s judgment affirmed - Conviction and sentence for simple injuries under Section 323/34 IPC sustained - No order as to costs. [Paras 49-51]

Domestic Violence – Interim Monetary Compensation – Petitioner challenged the order of the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, enhancing interim monetary compensation from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 31,000 per month – Contention that an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act against an interim order is not maintainable – Court held that there is no bar on filing an appeal against an interim order under Section 29 of the DV Act – Interim orders passed under Section 23 of the DV Act are appealable [Paras 1-16].

Jurisdiction – Scope of Appeal under DV Act – Argument advanced by petitioner relying on Punjab & Haryana High Court decision, holding that no appeal lies against interim orders, rejected – Uttarakhand and Delhi High Courts’ decisions holding appeals maintainable against interim orders under DV Act endorsed – Legislature did not explicitly bar appeals against interim orders, thus they fall within purview of Section 29 of the DV Act [Paras 7-15].

Interim Order – Evaluation of Evidence – Order of the Trial Magistrate reducing interim compensation from Rs. 21,000 to Rs. 15,000 per month found cryptic and lacking reasons – 1^st Additional Sessions Judge’s detailed analysis and enhancement of interim compensation to Rs. 31,000 per month upheld – Findings based on petitioner’s substantial salary and children’s educational needs – No perversity in conclusions warranting High Court’s interference [Paras 17-21].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Appellate Court’s order – No gross failure of justice or violation of natural justice principles identified – High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 not invoked to alter well-reasoned orders of subordinate courts [Para 22].