Motor Vehicles – Fatal Accident – Stationary Tractor-Trolley at Night – Contributory Negligence Set Aside – Deceased motorcyclist collided with tractor-trolley parked on road in winter evening without reflectors/indicators/lights – Eye-witness testimony remained unimpeached – Driver admitted absence of indicators and stationary condition of vehicle – Criminal proceedings and charge-sheet against driver treated as prima facie supporting negligence – Held: Accident occurred due to sole negligence of tractor driver and Tribunal’s 50:50 contributory negligence finding was perverse and unsustainable [Paras 14-19, 23].

Motor Vehicles – Contributory Negligence – Absence of Specific Issue – Reduction of Compensation Impermissible – Though insurer/driver pleaded contributory negligence, Tribunal framed no specific issue – Held: In absence of an issue on contributory negligence, compensation could not be reduced on that ground [Para 20].

Motor Vehicles – Contributory Negligence – No Helmet – Rear Collision – No Presumption of Negligence – Tribunal attributed fault to deceased merely because he was not wearing helmet and hit stationary vehicle from behind – No evidence of rash speed or breach of traffic norms by deceased – Held: Contributory negligence cannot rest on conjectures and requires affirmative proof of act/omission materially contributing to accident [Paras 21-22].

Motor Vehicles – Assessment of Income – Family Pension – Deduction Prohibited – Tribunal deducted Army pension on reasoning that widow received same as family pension – Held: Family pension is a deferred/service benefit not flowing from tortfeasor and not correlated to accidental death – cannot be deducted while computing loss of dependency [Paras 24-28].

Motor Vehicles – Multiplier Method – Split Multiplier – Not Permissible – Tribunal applied split multiplier on assumption of reduced post-retirement income – Held: Split multiplier is foreign to Motor Vehicles Act – multiplier must be chosen on age as per settled structured formula – split multiplier set aside [Paras 30-33].

Motor Vehicles – Conventional Heads – Loss of Estate – Funeral Expenses – Consortium – Entitlement – Tribunal failed to award appropriate amounts under conventional heads – High Court granted loss of estate and funeral expenses and consortium (spousal and parental) as per prevailing principles [Para 34-35].

Motor Vehicles – Quantum – Recalculation – Enhancement – Monthly income assessed at ₹44,679 – future prospects @30% added – 1/3rd personal expenses deducted – multiplier 13 applied – total compensation computed at ₹61,50,632 – enhanced amount over Tribunal award ₹47,52,820 [Para 35].

Motor Vehicles – Interest – Enhanced Compensation – Rate – Held: Interest @9% p.a. granted on enhanced amount from date of claim petition till realization – insurer directed to deposit enhanced amount with interest within stipulated time for disbursement [Paras 36-37].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 10/08/2016 modified – Contributory negligence finding set aside – Compensation enhanced by ₹47,52,820 with interest @9% p.a. from date of claim petition till realization – Insurer directed to deposit and Tribunal to disburse to claimants [Paras 35-38].

Preventive Detention – Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act – Delay in Passing Detention Order – Snapping of Live and Proximate Link – Detention Order Vitiated – Detention order passed nearly one year after last alleged prejudicial activity – No satisfactory explanation for delay – Held: Preventive detention requires proximity between alleged activities and detention order – Undue delay snaps live link and vitiates detention [Paras 8–9, 11].

Preventive Detention – FIR Forming Substratum of Detention Closed as ‘Not Admitted’ – Effect – FIR No. 202/2024 Closed and Closure Accepted by Magistrate – Primary Basis of Detention Order Removed – Held: Once the foundational FIR collapses, detention order cannot survive on stale or antecedent FIRs alone [Paras 7–8, 11].

Preventive Detention – Reliance on Previous FIRs and DDRs – Criminal Antecedents v. Public Order – Mere Criminal History Insufficient – Earlier FIRs lacking proximity and immediacy – DDRs only reflective of past conduct – Held: Preventive detention cannot be sustained merely on criminal history without imminent threat to public order [Paras 7–9].

Preventive Detention – Grant of Bail in Criminal Case – Impact – Detenu enlarged on bail long prior to detention – Authorities did not consider detention necessary at relevant time – Subsequent detention based on same allegations impermissible [Paras 8–9].

Judicial Review – Failure of Writ Court to Consider Vital Legal Issues – Appellate Interference Justified – Learned Writ Court failed to examine delay and closure of FIR – Judgment set aside [Paras 10–11].

Reliance on Precedent – Delay in Preventive Detention – Supreme Court Principle Reiterated – Saeed Zakir Hussain Malik v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 8 SCC 233 followed – Absence of explanation for delay fatal to detention [Para 9].

Decision: Letters Patent Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 01.08.2025 passed in HCP No. 75/2025 set aside – Detention Order No. PSA/157 dated 20.05.2025 quashed – Detenu directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Caste Certificate – Adopted Child – Biological Parents Unknown – Child abandoned and adopted under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – District Court passed adoption order declaring adoptive parents as legal parents and directing issuance of birth certificate accordingly – Competent Authority issued caste certificate in favour of adopted child on basis of adoptive mother’s Special Backward Category – Certificate cancelled on complaint and cancellation upheld by Scrutiny Committee – Held: Statute governing caste certificates does not expressly prohibit grant of caste certificate to adopted child – Legal effect of adoption must be considered [Paras 1–6].

Adoption – Legal Effect – Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Meaning of “adoption” under Section 2(aa) – Adopted child permanently separated from biological parents and becomes legitimate child of adoptive parents with all rights, privileges and responsibilities – Adoption under Section 41 meant for orphaned, abandoned and surrendered children – Once adoption order is passed by competent court, legal fiction operates fully – Committees failed to consider this statutory effect [Paras 8–14].

Caste Determination – Adoptive Parents’ Status – When caste of biological parents is unknown – Adopted child must be treated as belonging to caste of adoptive parents – Otherwise child’s legal and social status would remain uncertain – Interpretation of Caste Certificate Act, 2000 must be harmonised with Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Adoption order and consequential birth record constitute valid foundation documents [Paras 6, 11–14].

Precedent – Applicability – Division Bench decision in Dr. Sonal Pratapsingh Vahanwala v. Deputy District Collector followed – Supreme Court observations in Rameshbhai Dabbhai Naika v. State of Gujarat relied upon – Principles governing effect of adoption equally applicable to adoption under Juvenile Justice Act [Paras 4, 7].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 21/02/2018 and Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 31/12/2018 set aside – Scrutiny Committee directed to issue caste validity certificate to adopted child as belonging to Special Backward Category within four weeks [Paras 14, Order].

Criminal Law – Arms Act – Conviction under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 – Proof of Seizure – Hostile Independent Witnesses – Benefit of Doubt – Appellant convicted for unlawful possession and use of firearm based on alleged police raid and recovery of pipe-gun and cartridges – Independent witnesses cited as members of raiding party and seizure witnesses (PW2, PW3, PW4, PW6) categorically denied participation in raid and witnessing seizure – Seizure list not proved to have been prepared in their presence – PW2 and PW6 admitted signing seizure list at instance of police without seeing seized articles – Held: Proof of conscious and lawful recovery is sine qua non for conviction under Arms Act – When seizure witnesses deny recovery and preparation of seizure list, prosecution case regarding recovery becomes highly doubtful – Conviction cannot be sustained. Acquittal [Paras 20–25].

Evidence – Police Witnesses – Requirement of Corroboration – Prosecution case resting primarily on testimony of police personnel – Independent witnesses examined but turned hostile and contradicted prosecution story – Though conviction can be based on police testimony alone, such evidence must inspire confidence – Where independent witnesses not only fail to corroborate but demolish prosecution case, implicit reliance on police version is unsafe – Lack of corroboration fatal to prosecution [Paras 26–32].

Evidence – Hostile Witness – Failure to Declare Witness Hostile – Effect – PW5 cited as member of raiding party categorically denied being on duty or having knowledge of incident – Prosecution neither declared him hostile nor cross-examined him – His unchallenged testimony binds prosecution and further weakens case – Indicates serious lapses in prosecution and undermines alleged constitution of raiding party [Paras 33–35].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Burden of Proof – Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Prosecution failed to establish lawful constitution of raiding party and credible recovery of arms – Serious contradictions and omissions in prosecution evidence – Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt not satisfied – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 36–38].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 27.06.1990 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri, in Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1990 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offences under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act – Appellant discharged from bail bonds and set at liberty, if not wanted in any other case – Direction issued under Section 437A Cr.PC for execution of bail bonds for six months.

Medical termination of pregnancy - Reproductive Rights – Sexual Assault Survivor – Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Second Trimester – Right to Reproductive Autonomy, Privacy and Dignity – Petitioner, a victim of sexual assault and minor at the time of incident, approached the High Court seeking medical termination of pregnancy and allied reliefs – Contention that continuation of pregnancy would severely prejudice her mental and physical well-being – Reliance placed on constitutional guarantees and judicial precedents recognising a woman’s right to make reproductive choices – Held: Victim of sexual assault is entitled to seek termination of pregnancy subject to medical opinion, keeping in view her dignity, autonomy and mental health [Paras 1–5].

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Role of Medical Board – Judicial Directions – Direction sought to constitute a Medical Board to examine the petitioner and opine on feasibility of termination – State submitted readiness to comply with any direction of the Court – Held: Second respondent directed to forthwith constitute a Medical Board and make necessary recommendations, and if opinion favours termination, to take expeditious steps for the procedure [Paras 6–8].

Forensic Evidence – Preservation of Foetus – Criminal Investigation – Prayer for preservation of terminated foetus/product of conception for DNA analysis and investigation in FIR registered for sexual assault – Held: Foetus to be preserved in accordance with existing protocols for purposes of investigation and trial [Para 9].

Victim Compensation – Sexual Assault – Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 – Claim for interim compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- – Held: Karnataka State Legal Services Authority directed to scrutinise the matter and release compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner in terms of the Scheme [Para 10].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Directions issued for constitution of Medical Board, expeditious decision on termination of pregnancy, preservation of foetus for forensic purposes, and release of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner.

Criminal Law – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Summoning Order – Defamation by Media Telecast – Applicants, Editor, Reporter and Anchor of News18 Punjab, sought quashing of summoning order in complaint alleging defamatory news telecast against an IPS officer – Allegation that applicants projected complainant as receiving illegal money from criminals – Magistrate issued summons after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. – Held: At the stage of Section 482 Cr.P.C., High Court cannot evaluate evidence or conduct a mini-trial – Matter requires adjudication during trial [Paras 1–3, 24–28].

Defamation – Media Trial – Applicability of Exceptions to Section 499 IPC – Applicants contended that telecast was fair reporting and protected by exceptions under Section 499 IPC – Held: Benefit of exceptions to defamation is a matter of defence and cannot be examined at the stage of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 10–12, 26].

Summoning Order – Scope of Interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Magistrate considered inquiry report, statements of complainant and witnesses, and relevant materials before issuing summons – Held: When prima facie case is disclosed and due application of mind is evident, inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised to stifle prosecution [Paras 23–27].

Parity with Co-Accused – Effect of Supreme Court Order – Similar quashing order in favour of another news channel set aside by Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.14790 of 2023 – Supreme Court held that Magistrate had considered inquiry report and relevant material and discretionary relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was not warranted – Held: Present case stands on same footing and applicants not entitled to quashing [Paras 18–23].

Principles Governing Quashing – No Mini Trial – Reliance placed on Neeharika Infrastructure, Aryan Singh, Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao – Held: While considering quashing, Court must proceed on allegations in complaint as they stand and cannot assess reliability or truthfulness of allegations [Paras 26–28].

Decision: Application dismissed – Summoning order dated 12.12.2018 and criminal proceedings to continue – No interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – No order as to costs.

Motor Accident Compensation – Doctrine of Election – Section 167 Motor Vehicles Act – Bar against Dual Remedies – Claimants initially filed claim petitions before MACT under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and received compensation pursuant to awards passed by MACT – Thereafter, claimants again approached the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 for the same accidents – Held: Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates an election of remedies – Claimant may opt either under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Workmen’s Compensation Act but not under both – Subsequent claims under the Workmen’s Compensation Act after availing remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act are not maintainable [Paras 9–11, 18].

Doctrine of Election – Estoppel by Conduct – Abuse of Process of Law – Once a claimant consciously chooses one statutory forum and receives compensation, he is estopped from invoking another forum for the same cause of action – Courts cannot be treated as bargaining forums for enhanced compensation – Successive claims amount to abuse of the process of law [Paras 11, 17, 19].

Employer Liability vs. Vehicle Liability – Distinction Rejected – Argument that MACT claim was against offending vehicle and WCC claim against employer rejected – Held: Nature of liability does not dilute statutory bar under Section 167 – Identity of accident and cause of action is determinative [Paras 5, 17].

Adjustment of Compensation – Impermissibility – Submission that compensation awarded by MACT could be adjusted against compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act rejected – Held: Law does not permit adjustment when the second claim itself is barred – Claimant cannot pursue parallel remedies sequentially [Paras 5, 17].

Precedents – Binding Effect of Supreme Court Judgments – Reliance placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bidami – Coordinate Bench judgment permitting dual compensation stood set aside by Supreme Court – Held: Law is settled that double compensation under both enactments is impermissible [Paras 11–16].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned awards dated 10.12.2012 and 29.08.2011 passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioners quashed and set aside – Claim petitions under the Workmen’s Compensation Act held not maintainable – Claimants directed to refund compensation amounts received with usual interest – All connected applications disposed of.

Service Law – Recruitment – Reservation for Ex-Servicemen – Horizontal vs Vertical Reservation – Illegality in Applying Vertical Reservation – Recruitment notice dated 19.02.2014 issued by MCL for 303 posts of Security Guard – 24.5% reservation for Ex-Servicemen applied as a separate vertical category – Cut-off marks for ESM-General fixed substantially lower than General category – Resulted in total reservation exceeding 50% – Held: Reservation for Ex-Servicemen is a special reservation under Article 16(1) and must operate horizontally cutting across vertical categories – Application of ESM reservation as vertical held contrary to constitutional principles and settled law [Paras 2, 4, 7, 11].

Reservation Law – Horizontal Reservation – Principles Reiterated – Horizontal reservation intended to be interlocking in nature and to be adjusted within respective vertical categories without disturbing overall reservation percentages – Reliance placed on Constitution Bench decision in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India and subsequent judgments – Held: ESM candidates must be adjusted against their respective social categories unless selected on merit in open category [Paras 7–11].

Selection Process – Participation Without Protest – Estoppel – Not Applicable in Case of Patent Illegality – Appellants contended that writ petitioners participated in selection with knowledge of ESM reservation – Held: Participation does not bar challenge when selection process itself is contrary to constitutional mandate and statutory rules – Illegality in reservation structure goes to the root of the matter [Paras 3–4, 7].

Relief – Protection of Appointed Ex-Servicemen – Creation of Supernumerary Posts – Long lapse of time and continued service of appointed ESM candidates considered – Held: Appointments of ESM candidates already appointed should not be disturbed – Directions of Single Bench to regularize such appointments by creating supernumerary posts upheld – Writ petitioners to be considered afresh against available vacancies and granted seniority over supernumerary appointees [Paras 4–6, 12–13].

Judicial Review – No Interference in Well-Reasoned Single Bench Judgment – Appellants conceded error in applying vertical reservation to Ex-Servicemen – No infirmity or illegality found in directions issued by Single Bench – Appeals found devoid of merit – Writ appeals dismissed [Paras 5, 13–14].

Decision: Writ Appeals dismissed – Judgment of Single Bench dated 17.12.2024 upheld – Directions for fresh consideration of writ petitioners and protection of Ex-Servicemen appointments affirmed – No costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Locus of Complainant – Cheques drawn in favour of “Hotel Paradise” – Complaint filed by M/s Krishna Hotels and Developers through its partner – Trial court initially questioned locus but later summoned accused holding Hotel Paradise to be a unit of complainant firm – Held: Complaint under Section 138 NI Act can be filed only by payee or holder in due course – Third party has no locus [Paras 3, 6, 8–9].

Cheque Dishonour – Section 142 NI Act – Cognizance – Mandatory Requirement – Statute mandates that cognizance can be taken only on complaint by payee or holder in due course – Any deviation strikes at the root of jurisdiction – Summoning order passed ignoring this statutory mandate is illegal [Paras 9, 13–14].

Payee and Holder in Due Course – Interpretation – Payee is person named in cheque – Holder in due course must derive lawful title for consideration – Authorized representative can file complaint only on behalf of payee/holder and not in own name – Complaint by stranger or third party not maintainable [Paras 10–13].

Distinguishing Precedent – M/s Naresh Potteries Case – Supreme Court decision relied upon by complainant held distinguishable – In that case, complaint filed by payee entity through authorized person – In present case, complainant entity itself not the payee – Ratio held inapplicable [Para 12].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – Trial court failed to consider earlier objection regarding locus while passing summoning order – Error apparent on face of record – Revisional Court justified in quashing proceedings at threshold [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 26/07/2013 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 8, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 1091 of 2012 quashed – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act held not maintainable for want of locus – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 15–17].