Education Law – Withholding of Original Certificates – Petitioner, an MBBS student, withdrew mid-course due to health reasons and sought return of original certificates for admission to another university – Respondent institution withheld certificates citing pending balance fee for IV and V year – Held: Retaining original documents of a student is not a lawful means for fee recovery – Educational institutions have no lien over original documents of students – Such action unjustifiably hampers career progression [Paras 1-5, 17-19]

Right to Education – Unlawful Retention of Documents – Court held that documents like Transfer Certificate and Migration Certificate are personal property of the student and cannot be used as collateral for enforcement of financial obligations – Recovery of dues must follow legal procedure – Affidavits by student and parent empower university to recover dues but not to withhold original documents [Paras 17-18]

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on High Court Judgments – Reliance placed on judgments of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sukhmanpreet Singh Cheema v. Union of India and Monika v. PT. B.D. Sharma University – Held: Institutions cannot retain documents for fee recovery – Also referred to Madras High Court decision in M. Kesavan v. Principal, Cheeran College of Pharmacy affirming same principle [Para 6-7]

Institutional Practice – MBBS Admission Guidelines – Information booklet clauses relied upon by University only pertain to submission of documents at admission – No clause permits prolonged custody or retention post withdrawal of admission – Court found no agreement, clause, or affidavit authorising retention of documents against unpaid fees [Paras 10-11, 18]

Fee Recovery – Appropriate Legal Remedies – Institutions may recover unpaid fee through legal means but cannot enforce payment by impounding student’s certificates – Petitioner had already paid three years’ fees for two years of study – Refusal to return documents disproportionate and without authority [Paras 12-13, 19]

Equity and Fairness – Career Prejudice – Court observed that unjustified withholding of documents severely prejudices educational rights of students – Petitioner’s admission in new university was at risk due to non-availability of documents required for examinations – Directed immediate release [Paras 19-20]

Decision: Application allowed – Jaipur National University directed to release original Class 12 Transfer Certificate and Migration Certificate to the petitioner forthwith and not later than 04/12/2025 – University may pursue lawful recovery of fees through appropriate legal process – Main writ petition listed for 22/01/2026.

Criminal Law – Voluntarily Causing Hurt by Dangerous Weapon – Section 324 IPC – Conviction Upheld with Sentence Modification – Appellant convicted for stabbing his wife with a dagger causing injuries on chest, abdomen and thumb – Trial Court acquitted appellant of Sections 326 and 307 IPC but convicted under Section 324 IPC – High Court reappreciated evidence and upheld conviction – Held: Prosecution proved offence under Section 324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1–29].

Evidence – Injured Witness – Credibility – Victim (PW1) sustained injuries and her testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitness (PW2) – Injured witness testimony carries great evidentiary value and ordinarily cannot be disbelieved – Held: Victim would not falsely implicate her own husband and allow real assailant to escape [Paras 12–13, 25–27].

Evidence – Delay in FIR – Explanation – FIR lodged after 13 days due to victim’s hospitalization and treatment in ICU – Held: Delay properly explained and does not affect prosecution case when supported by credible evidence [Paras 3, 27].

Evidence – Weapon of Offence – Non-production / Non-identification – Failure of witnesses to identify seized dagger and admission by Investigating Officer that MO was not the same weapon – Held: Non-production of weapon of offence not fatal when ocular and medical evidence convincingly establish offence [Paras 19, 26].

Medical Evidence – Nature of Injuries – Determination – Doctor opined injuries as grievous, but duration of hospitalization was short – Trial Court held injuries to be simple and convicted under Section 324 IPC – High Court concurred – Held: Determination of nature of injury by Trial Court based on medical report and surrounding circumstances justified [Paras 25, 28].

Evidence – Contradictions – Minor Discrepancies – Variations regarding opening of gate, presence of household members and seizure of bloodstained articles – Held: Minor contradictions do not demolish core prosecution case [Paras 8–9, 26–27].

Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Reduction – Considering age of appellant (63 years), period of custody already undergone and passage of time – Sentence modified to period already undergone – Fine maintained – Held: Ends of justice met [Paras 30–31].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 324 IPC upheld – Sentence reduced to period of detention already undergone – Judgment and order dated 20/03/2023 in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2022 affirmed with modification in sentence.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Maintainability under Section 528 BNSS – Chargesheet and Cognizance Not on Record – Application Not Maintainable – Applicant sought quashing of FIR registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC without placing the chargesheet or order of cognizance on record – Held: In absence of both, the application under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) is not maintainable – Quashing remedy lies under Article 226 until cognizance is taken – Once cognizance is taken, Section 528 BNSS becomes applicable only if those documents are placed on record [Paras 13, 18]

Criminal Law – Second FIR on Same Allegations – Abuse of Process – Allegation of Fraudulent Sale Deed Based on Forged Power of Attorney – Applicant alleged that second FIR based on same set of facts as earlier FIR (FIR No. 39 of 2022) violates principles laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 – However, Court declined to adjudicate merits in absence of maintainability due to procedural lapse – Observed that merits cannot be examined where application itself is procedurally defective [Paras 2–4, 19]

Forgery and Cheating – Prima Facie Allegations – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Application of Law in Sheila Sebastian and G. Sagar Suri Cases – Applicant relied on Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharraj, (2018) 7 SCC 581 to argue he was not the maker of false document and therefore not liable for forgery – Court declined to evaluate whether ingredients of forgery and cheating were satisfied due to procedural bar [Paras 3, 4, 15–16]

Scope of Inherent Powers – BNSS Section 528 (Old Section 482 CrPC) – Limited to Post-Cognizance Stage – Recent Supreme Court Clarification in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Case – Citing Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, SLP (Crl.) No. 13424 of 2025, Supreme Court held that FIR can be quashed under Article 226 before cognizance is taken – After cognizance, quashing under Section 528 BNSS is available only if chargesheet and cognizance order are on record – Applied to dismiss current application [Paras 13, 18]

Judicial Discipline – Full Bench Binding Precedent – No Conflict with Apex Court View – Court considered Full Bench decision in Ram Lal Yadav v. State of U.P., 1989 APLJ (Cri) 107, and harmonized it with current law – Reiterated that police power to investigate is unfettered and cannot be interfered with under Section 528 unless misuse of power or abuse of process is evident – Quashing of FIR not permissible unless strict procedural compliance is met [Paras 7, 14]

Decision: Application dismissed as not maintainable – Applicant failed to place chargesheet and cognizance order on record – In absence of these, inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (old Section 482 CrPC) cannot be invoked – Court declined to examine merits or legality of FIR – Remedy, if any, lies under Article 226 or by filing appropriate application post-cognizance with necessary documents [Paras 18–20]

Commercial Law – Maintainability of Commercial Suit – Appellant challenged classification of suit as commercial on ground that no formal written agreement existed and service was not commercial – Held: Provision of transportation and storage of goods by Plaintiff (a packers and movers business) is a commercial transaction falling under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) and (xviii) of the Commercial Courts Act – Objection held untenable – Suit rightly instituted as a commercial suit [Paras 23-24]

Contract and Cause of Action – Recovery of Storage Rent – Plaintiff proved entrustment of goods and obligation to pay monthly rent of Rs.25,000/- – Defendant failed to lead evidence – Cause of action clearly made out – Existence of valid agreement inferred from conduct and documentary evidence – Plea that document was only a quotation held to be afterthought [Paras 25, 31]

Procedure – Electronic Records – Compliance with Order XI Rule 6 CPC – Plaintiff fulfilled requirements of declaration and certification under Section 65B of IEA and Section 63 of BSA – Court held procedural compliance was adequate – Defendant’s objections dismissed [Para 26]

Evidence Law – Relevance of Prior Judgments – Objection raised to admissibility of previous unchallenged judgments under Section 43 IEA / Section 37 BSA – Held: Judgments inter-partes admissible not as conclusive proof but as evidence of habitual default under Sections 8 and 13 of IEA – Relevance upheld [Paras 28-29]

Inspection and Condition of Goods – Local Commissioner Report – Allegation of damage to goods rejected – Most items intact, minor wear due to time – Refusal of Defendant to open sealed items led to adverse inference – No proof of misappropriation found [Para 30]

Equity and Unjust Enrichment – Defendant continued to enjoy benefit of storage without fulfilling payment obligations – Conduct showed intent to avoid liability while taking advantage of services – Trial Court's decree found just and equitable [Paras 32-34]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court’s decree for Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @10% p.a. affirmed – Suit rightly treated as commercial – No procedural or evidentiary infirmity found – Costs imposed on Appellant.

Criminal Law – Bail - Rape Allegation – Consent – Breach of Promise to Marry – Petitioner accused of offences under Sections 69 and 75(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS for allegedly refusing to marry the victim after a consensual relationship – Relationship between petitioner and respondent lasted over three years – Victim lodged complaint only after petitioner refused marriage – Held: In light of Supreme Court rulings, consensual relationship based on a genuine promise to marry, later not fulfilled due to intervening circumstances, does not amount to rape – FIR lacks allegations showing false promise from inception – No prima facie case under Section 69 BNS made out [Paras 3–14]

Bail – Principles for Grant – Promise to Marry – Consent and Misconception of Fact – Court relies on binding precedents from Supreme Court including Amol Bhagwan Nehul, Prithivirajan, Kunal Chatterjee, and Maheshwar Tigga – Held: Physical relations on the basis of a genuine promise to marry do not constitute rape unless it is proved that the promise was false from the beginning – Petitioner's prolonged relationship and absence of coercion negate allegation of misconception of fact – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 4–16]

Bail – Conditions Imposed – Accused directed to furnish bond with sureties and report weekly to police – Restrictions imposed on travel outside Andhra Pradesh and on influencing witnesses – Cooperation with investigation mandated [Para 16]

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Bail granted to the petitioner/accused on furnishing bond and subject to strict conditions including weekly reporting, restricted travel, non-interference with witnesses, and cooperation with investigation.

Criminal Law – Murder - Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference – Principles – High Court reiterates that interference is permissible only when findings are perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or when only one view (guilt) is possible – Double presumption of innocence applies – Trial court’s findings found sound and not perverse [Paras 16–20, 49–51].

FIR – Delay and Suspicious Registration – Material contradictions between FIR version, GD entry (Ex. Ka-26), testimony of informant (P.W.1) and I.O. (P.W.5) regarding where, when and how FIR was lodged – Delay in FIR reaching Magistrate (4 days) and Circle Officer (2 days) further strengthened suspicion – Finding of trial court that FIR timing doubtful upheld [Paras 22–26].

Eyewitness Testimony – Chance Witnesses – P.W.1 (wife) and P.W.2 (son) claimed to witness incident while returning from doctor – Their presence found improbable due to contradictions regarding timings, medical treatment, travel distance, and improbable conduct – Court affirms trial court’s conclusion that both were ‘chance witnesses’ whose presence was not naturally explained [Paras 27–33].

Witness Credibility – Major Contradictions – P.W.1 and P.W.2 contradict each other on: (i) who drove the Bolero, (ii) number of assailants inside vehicle, (iii) manner of attack, (iv) direction of road, (v) presence of mud/grass in mouth, (vi) location of body – Such contradictions strike at core of prosecution case – Trial court rightly held their evidence unreliable [Paras 34–44].

Medical Evidence vs Ocular Evidence – No Crush Injuries – Prosecution alleged Bolero ran over deceased 3–4 times breaking limbs – Postmortem (Ex. Ka-2) showed no crush injuries, no broken limbs; only multiple abrasions/contusions; internal injuries inconsistent with running over by heavy vehicle – Ocular version not corroborated by medical evidence – Creates serious doubt on prosecution story [Paras 45–48].

Two Views Possible – Acquittal Sustained – Trial court’s findings based on reasonable appreciation of evidence; appellate court cannot substitute merely because another view is possible – Appeal dismissed [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of all accused affirmed – No perversity in trial court’s judgment – Findings consistent with evidence and established principles for appeal against acquittal [Paras 49–51].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Acquittal – State challenged judgment acquitting respondents of offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 307/34 IPC – Held: Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that injuries were caused by accused – Acquittal justified [Paras 1, 17, 20].

Evidence – Identification of Accused – Absence of Test Identification Parade – Injured and alleged eye-witness did not know accused earlier – Accused identified for first time in Court – Occurrence took place at night and assailants were standing in darkness – Held: Dock identification without prior TIP is weak and unreliable – Identity of accused not established [Paras 12-13].

Evidence – Injured Witness – Contradictions – Injured stated in police statement that assailants were unknown and standing in dark – Subsequently identified accused in Court – Identification held improbable as injury was inflicted from behind and injured became unconscious – Testimony not trustworthy [Paras 12-13].

Witness Testimony – Presence of Eye-Witness – PW5 Kartar Singh claimed to be present – Injured did not name or refer to PW5 either in FIR or evidence – PW5 closely related to injured – Did not take injured to hospital – Held: Presence of PW5 at spot doubtful and possibility of being introduced witness cannot be ruled out [Para 14].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery – Shoe allegedly recovered from spot on third day and another from accused – Place of occurrence was busy thoroughfare – Held: Recovery highly improbable and unreliable [Para 15].

Motive – Absence – Though motive not mandatory in every case – In facts of present case absence of motive weakened prosecution case – Failure to establish reason for accused to attack complainant [Para 16].

Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Presumption of innocence reinforced by acquittal – Appellate Court to interfere only in case of perversity or illegality – No infirmity or perversity found in trial Court judgment – Acquittal upheld [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment dated 27.11.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridkot acquitting respondents upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Consumer Law – Maintainability of Writ – Challenge to National Commission Orders – High Court holds that although writ under Article 226 is maintainable against National Commission orders, such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and ordinarily declined when Article 227 remedy exists – Petitioner’s challenge rejected as findings of Consumer Fora were concurrent, factual, and non-perverse – Held: Writ petition not maintainable on facts; no exceptional circumstance shown [Paras 18–21, 24–27]

Alternate Remedy – Article 226 vs. Article 227 – When supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is available, invocation of Article 226 ordinarily impermissible unless there is violation of natural justice, patent lack of jurisdiction, or infringement of fundamental rights – Supreme Court precedents in Whirlpool, Harbanslal Sahnia, Radha Krishan Industries, Ibrat Faizan and Rikhab Chand Jain applied – Petitioner failed to bring case within exceptions [Paras 12–16, 18–21]

Consumer Protection Act – Concurrent Findings – Real Estate Project – Consolidation Proceedings – Petitioner alleged force majeure under Section 56 of the Contract Act – Consumer Fora found that project land was under consolidation and possession never with petitioner – Petitioner's pleas rejected repeatedly – High Court refuses re-appreciation of facts in writ jurisdiction – Findings held reasonable and not perverse [Paras 22–24, 26]

Jurisdiction – Supervisory Role of High Court – National Commission treated as ‘Tribunal’ under Articles 136 & 227 – High Court reiterates its limited power of interference and declines to act as appellate authority over factual determinations of Consumer Fora [Paras 15–16, 18–21]

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – No interference warranted with orders of District, State or National Consumer Commissions – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 27].

Labour Law – Legal Representation – Section 36(4) ID Act – Employer’s Right to Counsel – Applicant, a small laundry employing 4–5 persons, sought leave to engage an Advocate for cross-examination in Reference proceedings – Labour Court rejected request solely on objection of workman – Held: Refusal was mechanical and contrary to settled law – Court must exercise discretion to prevent prejudice and ensure fairness – Impugned order set aside [Paras 6, 11–13, 17–18].

Industrial Adjudication – Fair Trial – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner was unskilled in legal procedure and unable to cross-examine or present evidence effectively – Denial of legal aid to such a party violates Articles 14 and 21 – Right to fair hearing includes reasonable opportunity to defend with appropriate representation – Leave under Section 36(4) must be interpreted liberally in such cases [Paras 15–16].

Statutory Interpretation – Consent and Leave under Section 36(4) – Twin conditions of opposite party’s consent and Court’s leave are mandatory – However, Court must scrutinise mala fide or arbitrary denial of consent – Labour Court has power to override such refusal in interest of justice – Consent cannot be used to exploit or disadvantage the other party [Paras 9–10, 14].

Legal Framework – Special Law vs. General Law – Advocates Act vs. ID Act – Section 30 of Advocates Act does not override Section 36 of ID Act – ID Act being special legislation governs representation before Labour Courts – Special law prevails over general law – Labour Court’s discretion remains intact [Paras 9, 23–24].

Judicial Precedents – Court relies on Bangalore Water Supply, Paradip Port Trust, T.K. Varghese, Thyssen Krupp Industries, and Yeshwant Harichandra Gharat to reaffirm that denial of representation must not result in inequality or miscarriage of justice – Representation must be allowed where required for effective participation [Paras 4.1–4.4, 14].

Decision: Civil Revision Application allowed – Labour Court's order dated 01.12.2023 quashed – Applicant permitted to engage Advocate of choice – Labour Court to proceed on merits – Appreciation recorded for Legal Aid Counsel Mr. Shailesh Pathak [Paras 18–20].