Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence Set Aside – Criminal Appeal against Trial Court's conviction for murder – Allegation of killing brother over property dispute – Evidence purely circumstantial with no direct eyewitness account – Prosecution's failure to establish motive convincingly – Suspicion alone insufficient for conviction – Held that chain of circumstances not complete to exclude hypothesis of innocence – Appellant acquitted.

Circumstantial Evidence – Requirements for Conviction – Analysis – Held – Prosecution failed to provide a complete and unbroken chain of evidence to link the appellant conclusively to the crime – Established principles demand exclusion of every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused – Appellant's presence and conduct insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 28-32]

Recovery of Weapon and Clothes – Admissibility – Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act – Held – Recovery of the axe and blood-stained clothes did not meet the legal standards for admissibility – Prosecution failed to prove the exact disclosure statement as required under law – Recovery of items from open, accessible place further weakens the evidence. [Paras 32-40]

Conduct of Accused – Relevance under Section 8 of Evidence Act – Held – Conduct of the accused in recovery of items noted but insufficient to form sole basis for conviction – Apex Court’s caution that conduct alone cannot establish guilt for serious offenses like murder applied – Benefit of doubt granted. [Paras 41-46]

Abscondence of Accused – Legal Implications – Held – Mere abscondence cannot be construed as conclusive proof of guilt – Innocent individuals may also abscond due to fear of wrongful arrest – Not a determinative factor in absence of solid evidence. [Para 45]

Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Incriminating Circumstances – Failure to Put to Accused – Held – Crucial recovery evidence not presented to the appellant during his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Violates legal principles ensuring fair opportunity for defense – Weighs in favor of acquittal. [Para 44]

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted. The trial court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC is overturned due to insufficient evidence and lack of conclusive proof. Appellant's bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged. Compliance with Section 437A Cr.P.C. required within 15 days.

Writ Jurisdiction – Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 – Validity of forum selection clause – High Court of Calcutta holds jurisdiction despite forum selection clause specifying courts in Bhopal – Constitutional provisions under Article 226 cannot be contracted out – Part of cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court – Petitioners received rejection communication at Kolkata, affecting their business – Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 not ousted by forum selection clause [Paras 4, 6-7, 22-39].

Tender Evaluation – Applicability of Amendment No. 5 to EPC Tender Document – Notification dated August 31, 2016, prohibits amendments during offer submission period – Amendment No. 5 issued within fifteen days prior to bid due date – Held inapplicable to petitioners’ tender – Petitioners ineligible without the amendment [Paras 9, 41-49].

Bid Submission Requirements – Non-uploading of Appendix-IB with Technical Bid – Bid rejected as non-responsive – Tender terms required Appendix-IB with technical bid – Petitioners’ submission of Appendix-IB with financial bid insufficient – Authority’s interpretation given primacy – Decision to reject technical bid upheld [Paras 10-15, 51-57].

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Held – Petition dismissed as the decision-making process of respondent authorities adhered to tender terms and natural justice – No arbitrariness or unreasonableness found in rejection of petitioners’ bid – Costs not awarded [Paras 58-60].

Recruitment Process – Selection for Post of Constable – Alleged Irregularities – Petitioners successfully cleared written examination, Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Measurement Test (PMT), and viva voce, yet appointment letters not issued – High Court examined the selection process and found procedural irregularities in rejecting candidates despite their qualifications – Directions issued for reconsideration of certain candidates.

Right to Fair Treatment – Impersonation Allegations – Held – Rejection of candidates on mere suspicion of impersonation without giving them an opportunity to respond is unjust – High Court directed authorities to process candidatures of two petitioners alleged to have impersonated, as no substantive evidence was provided, and to consider them for appointment based on merit.

Decision – Petition Partly Allowed – The High Court directed the respondents to process the appointments of Krishna Murari Kumar and Binod Kumar, found eligible but rejected on suspicion of impersonation – Authorities to complete this process within four weeks and accommodate in next available vacancies if current vacancies are filled – Age bar impediments waived for delayed processing – Remaining petitioners found ineligible based on marks secured compared to last selected candidates in respective categories.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet – Revisional application under Sections 482 and 401 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner’s marriage dissolved by mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/406 IPC deemed abuse of process – High Court’s inherent powers invoked to prevent miscarriage of justice – FIR and charge-sheet quashed. [Paras 1-36]

Matrimonial Disputes – Settlement – High Court’s inherent powers – Analysis – Held – Parties resolved matrimonial disputes and obtained mutual consent divorce – Continuation of criminal proceedings counterproductive – Legal precedent supports quashing in cases of amicable settlements in matrimonial disputes. [Para 34-35]

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Court quashes FIR and charge-sheet against petitioner, citing abuse of process and resolution of matrimonial issues through mutual consent divorce – Recognizes necessity of applying inherent powers to prevent injustice. [Para 36-40]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet – Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – FIR for molestation and threats – FIR No.0048 dated 25.06.2022 registered under Sections 452, 354 IPC, Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, later including Sections 354-A and 195-A IPC – Petitioner alleged to have threatened the victim’s uncle to force compromise – High Court evaluates nature and scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Held: Substantial prosecution evidence recorded, including inconsistent testimony of victim – High Court refrains from quashing FIR, emphasizing trial court’s role in evaluating evidence – Petition dismissed with costs for misleading information about previous petition – Directions for cost recovery provided. [Paras 1-13]

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Ambit – Powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Exercise of inherent jurisdiction not limited to cases where no trial has commenced – High Court retains power to quash FIR even when substantial prosecution evidence is recorded, but with caution – Each case to be evaluated on facts – Reliance on precedents establishing principles for exercise of inherent powers. [Paras 6-9]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Costs Imposed – Court finds no exceptional circumstances warranting interference – Petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000 as costs to be deposited with trial court and remitted to Punjab State Legal Services Authority – Detailed procedure for cost recovery outlined. [Paras 11-13]

Election Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Article 329(b) of the Constitution - Petitioner sought declaration of electoral malpractices and repolling - High Court held that disputes relating to election process should be resolved through election petitions as per constitutional mandate - Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable - Held that the Court cannot intervene in ongoing election processes which must be challenged via appropriate election petitions after conclusion of elections - Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 7-9, 12, 18]

Conduct of Elections - Scrutiny of Electoral Documents - Petitioner claimed denial of opportunity to address grievances during scrutiny of Form 17A - High Court found no evidence of violation of Election Commission guidelines by election officers - Held that instructions from Election Commission, though binding, do not constitute enforceable law for invalidation of elections - Petitioner's remedy lies in filing an election petition. [Paras 4-6, 14-15]

Decision - Election Dispute Resolution - High Court emphasized adherence to constitutional framework for resolving election disputes - Reinforced the principle that election processes should not be interrupted by judicial intervention during their course - Writ petition dismissed without costs, with liberty to petitioner to seek appropriate remedy through election petition. [Paras 16-19]

Election Law – Writ Petition challenging election process – Dismissal on grounds of non-maintainability – Petitioner contested in the 2024 General Elections as an MLA candidate from the YSR Congress Party – Allegations of electoral offences and collusion between election staff and Telugu Desam Party personnel – Petitioner sought fresh polls in specific polling stations – Court found that the proper recourse for election disputes is through an election petition as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India and not through a writ petition under Article 226 – Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Jurisdiction and Maintainability – Article 329(b) – Interpretation – Election disputes to be adjudicated via election petition – High Courts barred from interfering in election processes while they are ongoing – Only after the conclusion of the election process can disputes be raised. [Paras 7-12]

Election Commission Directives – Legal standing – Directions issued by the Election Commission to Chief Electoral Officers – Binding but not equivalent to law – Violation of such directions does not invalidate election results – Remedies available through election petitions, not writ petitions. [Para 14-15]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Court held the petition as not maintainable under Article 329(b) – Petitioner advised to pursue election disputes through appropriate proceedings after the election process – No adjudication on the truthfulness of allegations – Petition dismissed without costs. [Paras 18-19]

Elections – Writ Petition for Re-scrutiny and Re-polling – Article 329(b) of the Constitution – Election Petition as Proper Remedy – Petitioner contested as MLA from 166-Chandragiri Assembly Constituency – Alleged voter suppression, ballot tampering, and violence on polling day – Complaints to election authorities ignored – Petitioner kept in separate room during scrutiny due to law and order issues – Supreme Court held that disputes related to elections should be addressed via election petitions and not writ petitions – Writ petition dismissed for lack of maintainability. [Paras 2-18]

Constitutional Law – Article 329(b) – Bar on Court Interference – Election matters to be resolved through election petitions – Interference by courts during election process is barred – Courts to avoid interrupting the electoral process – Held that grievances related to electoral offenses should be pursued through appropriate election petitions post-election. [Paras 7-10, 12-16]

Electoral Malpractice Allegations – Scrutiny of Form 17A – Election Petition – Petitioner’s absence during scrutiny due to separate room arrangement for safety – Authorities conducted random scrutiny and found no irregularities – Memo No.18/CEO-Peshi/2024-2 issued – Petitioner’s remedy lies in filing an election petition, not a writ petition. [Paras 2, 4, 17]

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – High Court dismisses the writ petition citing the constitutional bar under Article 329(b) – Petitioner advised to pursue election petition for redressal of grievances – Court does not examine the veracity of electoral offense allegations. [Paras 18-19]

Family Law – Paternity Dispute – DNA Test – Petition challenging Family Court’s order rejecting application for DNA test to determine paternity – Petitioner had earlier been acquitted in a rape case involving the mother of the minor child – Petitioner had entered into an agreement admitting paternity and agreeing to pay maintenance and compensation – Held: Petitioner estopped from challenging paternity due to previous acknowledgment and agreement – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Equitable Estoppel in Paternity Cases – Analysis – Held: Applying the doctrine of Paternity by Estoppel, based on equitable estoppel, once a man has held out a child as his own, he cannot later deny paternity – Precedent from Pennsylvania Supreme Court and reliance on Article 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child support the preservation of familial identity – Ensuring stability and security for the child considered paramount. [Para 9-10]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court upheld the Family Court’s decision, finding no merit in the petitioner’s challenge – The petitioner had acted in a manner accepting paternity, and his later denial was deemed impermissible – Public policy considerations regarding the child’s right to identity emphasized. [Para 11]