Rape and Criminal Intimidation – Conviction of Grandson for Raping Grandmother – Appellant challenged conviction for rape and criminal intimidation – Prosecution provided consistent evidence from the victim and corroboration from her daughter and neighbors – Appellant’s history of substance abuse considered – Delay in filing FIR deemed justified due to familial relationships and threats – Conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 1-10].

Victim Testimony – Reliability and Corroboration – Court upheld victim’s testimony despite delay in reporting and absence of immediate medical evidence – Family dynamics and threats explained delay – Victim’s statement supported by daughter’s corroboration and neighbor’s testimony [Paras 4-7].

Evidence – Delay in FIR and Non-seizure of Victim’s Clothes – Court accepted delay in FIR citing Supreme Court precedents on rape case reporting delays – Non-seizure of clothes not detrimental due to victim’s immediate bathing – Medical report indicated possibility of sexual assault [Paras 6-7].

Mental Health of Accused – Request for Psychiatric Evaluation – Appellant’s habitual substance abuse and past behavior cited – Court found no necessity for psychiatric evaluation given the evidence and nature of offenses [Para 2].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentences for life imprisonment under Section 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(n), and two years under Section 506, IPC upheld – Sentences to run concurrently with fines imposed [Para 8-9].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR alleging dowry harassment and related offenses – High Court emphasized that FIR can only be quashed in the rarest of rare cases – Court found specific allegations of dowry demands and harassment substantiated by the complaint – Held that the Court cannot examine the veracity of allegations or conduct a detailed inquiry at this stage – Application dismissed [Paras 1-29].

Dowry Harassment – Continuous Offense – Allegations of continuous harassment for dowry from the date of marriage until the filing of FIR – Court held that harassment compelling the complainant to live in parental home amounts to cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Delay in filing FIR justified as a continuous offense [Paras 7-10].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Scope and Limitations – High Court discussed the limited scope of exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Emphasized that the power should be used sparingly and not to stifle legitimate prosecution – Detailed examination of evidence not permissible at this stage [Paras 11-24].

Decision:

Application dismissed – No grounds found for quashing the FIR – Allegations warrant trial and cannot be summarily dismissed [Para 29].

Criminal Law – Discharge of Accused – Trial Court discharged respondent for lack of material evidence beyond co-accused statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Revision petition filed by Union of India challenging this discharge – High Court emphasized the need for sufficient material to form a prima facie case [Paras 1-14].

Evidence – Call Detail Records (CDRs) – CDRs of mobile phones showing contact between co-accused and respondent, while in jail, considered significant – High Court highlighted CDRs and physical meetings as material evidence that must be examined during trial – Reaffirmed by Supreme Court’s stance in State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.; CDR details admissible and should be scrutinized at trial [Paras 9-10, 12].

Confessional Statements – Section 67 of NDPS Act – Statements made to NCB officers are inadmissible as per Section 25 of Evidence Act and Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu – Additional material evidence required to support such statements for charges to sustain [Paras 8, 14-15].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Held – Order of trial court set aside – Directed to frame charges against respondent and proceed with trial – Importance of CDRs and other corroborative evidence underlined for establishing prima facie case [Para 18].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Complainant initially made no allegations of dowry – Subsequent complaints and counter-complaints filed by both parties – Allegation of dowry demand emerged after initiation of divorce proceedings by husband – Court finds complaints retaliatory in nature – Proceedings quashed as abuse of process of court [Paras 1-25].

Retaliatory Complaints – Examination of timelines and contents of complaints – Absence of dowry allegations in initial complaint by wife – Subsequent dowry harassment complaint filed following husband’s divorce petition – Initiation of criminal proceedings found to be retaliatory [Paras 12-18].

Dowry Prohibition Act – Analysis of complaint – Initial complaint by wife made no mention of dowry – Counter-complaint by husband about harassment – Allegation of dowry demand only surfaced after matrimonial disputes escalated to court proceedings [Paras 6-16].

Decision – Petition allowed – Proceedings quashed – Directed Magistrate to release certain seized items to husband as per affidavit – Remaining items to be released to wife [Paras 23-25].
 

Criminal Law – Tampering of Recruitment Documents – Petitioner allegedly tampered with recruitment examination records to secure the post of Sub Inspector of Police – Utilized forged documents to move Central Administrative Tribunal for appointment – Complaint registered for offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of IPC – Final report filed and taken on record by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry – Petitioner seeks quashing of final report claiming lawful appointment and subsequent promotions [Paras 1-10].

Procedure under RTI Act – Fabrication of Documents – Petitioner obtained information through RTI, allegedly by manipulating records to show higher marks – Investigation revealed access to and tampering of examination documents – Statements of witnesses indicated involvement in furnishing false information [Paras 2-7].

Judicial Review – Prima Facie Case – High Court finds sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with trial – Dismisses petition to quash final report, emphasizing need for full-fledged trial to uncover truth – Cites Vishnu Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh to highlight protection against vexatious prosecution not applicable here [Paras 8-11].

Decision – Criminal Original Petition Dismissed – Held – Material collected during investigation supports proceeding with charges – Petition dismissed, Miscellaneous Petitions closed [Para 11].

Electricity Connection - Alternative Remedy - Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum: Petitioner sought court direction for a new electricity connection amidst pending civil suit for property possession and criminal writ for protection. High Court emphasized the statutory framework for consumer grievances under the Electricity Act, providing an effective, expeditious remedy through the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman. It underscored that writ petitions should not bypass prescribed statutory remedies unless exceptions apply [Paras 1-17].

Civil Procedure - Application of Order II Rule 2 CPC: Court noted petitioner’s previous suit encompassed similar relief for electricity load restoration, thus Order II Rule 2 CPC barred repetitive litigation in alternative forums. Petitioner’s claim of a new cause of action was rejected as misleading, portraying an artificial distinction to evade statutory process [Paras 8-11].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed - Petitioner directed to seek remedy through statutory consumer grievance mechanisms. Court highlighted procedural integrity and necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 12-17].

Land Acquisition – Unauthorized Use of Land – Compensation – Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession, permanent, and mandatory injunction after their land was utilized for road construction without their consent or due process – Trial court directed the State to acquire the land following legal procedures and disburse the assessed compensation to the landowners – High Court dismissed the State’s appeal, reinforcing the obligation for due process in land acquisition and fair compensation [Paras 1-14].

Legal Obligation for Compensation – The State constructed the Auhar-Kohina road using plaintiffs’ land without written consent or formal acquisition – Notification for acquisition issued but not completed – High Court emphasized that utilizing private property for public projects requires legal acquisition and fair compensation, rejecting the argument of oral consent and public interest overriding the requirement of lawful process [Paras 2-4].

Judicial Findings – Concurrent Judgments – Lower courts found the State’s actions unlawful due to lack of written consent and incomplete acquisition process – The State’s appeal was dismissed for lack of a substantial question of law – High Court reiterated the principle that the State cannot utilize private land without adhering to legal procedures and ensuring compensation [Paras 4-5].

Statutory Compliance – Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act – The issuance of notification under Section 4 is a necessary preliminary step in the land acquisition process – Failure to proceed with subsequent steps led to the lapsing of the notification – The State’s failure to comply with statutory requirements invalidated its claim of lawful use of the land [Paras 2-4].

Compensation for Public Use – High Court held that public use of private land without compensation is impermissible – The construction of public infrastructure does not exempt the State from following due legal processes and ensuring landowner rights – Compensation is mandatory unless the landowner voluntarily transfers land in a legally recognized manner [Paras 4-5].

Decision:
Appeal dismissed – Judgments of the lower courts upheld – State directed to initiate proper land acquisition procedures and compensate landowners as per legal requirements.
 

Arbitration Clause Interpretation – Scope and Ambit – Arbitration clause in the agreement, covering disputes “arising out of or in relation to the agreement”, was not restricted solely to the validity of the agreement – Court emphasized the need for purposive interpretation to give effect to all expressions in the clause and avoid redundancy – Forum selection clause read in conjunction with the arbitration clause, indicating all disputes related to the agreement, including validity, were referable to arbitration [Paras 22-28].

Issue of Limitation – Force Majeure Clause Consideration – Petitioners contended that mining operations were halted due to government restrictions, invoking the force majeure clause in the agreement – The court held that the issue of limitation was arguable and required evidence, thus should be decided on merits by the arbitrator [Paras 43-49].

Cause of Action for Arbitration – Court found the cause of action arose from the respondent’s failure to place purchase orders and provide post-dated cheques as per the agreement – The agreement was based on a previous debt and the dispute was not “dead wood” – Arbitration clause intended to cover such disputes [Paras 50-60].

Decision: Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allowed – Sole arbitrator appointed to resolve the disputes – All issues left open for consideration by the arbitrator [Paras 61-63].
 

Hindu Succession Act – Coparcenary Rights – Plaintiffs, daughters of the deceased Murugan, claimed coparcenary rights in the ancestral properties – Defendants contended that the properties were self-acquired by D1 – High Court held that all the suit properties are ancestral and plaintiffs are entitled to coparcenary rights by birth under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Trial Court’s findings on coparcenary status and superstructures reversed – [Paras 14-35].

Evidence Act – Additional Evidence – Plaintiffs filed petitions under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to receive additional documents – High Court allowed the petitions, marking the documents as Ex-A.8 to Ex-A.11 – Documents were vital to decide the dispute [Paras 15-18].

Civil Procedure – Sale Deeds and GPA – Transactions pending suit – Certain sale deeds and GPA executed by D1 in favour of D2 and others during the pendency of the suit – High Court held that transactions were done to defeat plaintiffs’ rights – Transactions not protected under proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 [Paras 30-33].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court modified – Preliminary decree granted to plaintiffs for 1/3 share each in ancestral properties – Suit dismissed in respect of certain properties due to prior valid sale deeds – CMP petitions allowed, additional documents received and marked [Paras 35].