Medical Negligence – Criminal Proceedings – Allegation of death due to hair transplantation performed by the petitioner – Prosecution claims the petitioner’s untrained actions caused the death – Challenge to proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Court examines whether death was a direct result of the treatment given – The complaint filed after a significant delay is considered an afterthought – Court emphasizes the need for gross negligence to attract Section 304A of IPC – No mens rea attributed to the accused – Reference to relevant legal precedents. [Para 3-6]

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing of charges under Section 304(ii) IPC – Examination of the circumstances surrounding the medical procedure – Reports suggest possible negligence and violation of rules – Issue raised regarding the fitness of the medical center and the petitioner’s qualifications – Quashing of charges under Section 482 Cr.P.C. not appropriate as it involves factual disputes – High Court cannot appreciate evidence at this stage – Matter requires thorough inquiry during trial. [Para 12]

Misuse of Official Symbols – Unauthorized use of stickers and artifacts containing emblems and phrases like “Govt of India”, “Government of Tamil Nadu”, “High Court”, and “Police” on private vehicles – Petitioner seeks directions for removal and penal action. [Para 2]

Previous Directions – Reference to order in W.P.No.14697 of 2014, which laid down guidelines for preventing the misuse of official symbols and for penal action against violators. [Para 3-4]

Implementation – Submissions by Additional Public Prosecutor indicating steps taken pursuant to previous order, including the issuance of Circular Memorandum, imposition of fines, and ongoing surveillance. [Para 5-6]

Continuous Monitoring – Recognition that the monitoring of such unauthorized uses is a continuous process and action needs to be taken upon detection. [Para 7]

State Responsibility – Assurance by Additional Government Pleader about the State’s commitment to taking stern action against violators and maintaining compliance with rules and regulations. [Para 8]

Disposition – Writ petition disposed of in light of previous guidelines and steps already taken. No order as to costs. [Para 9]

Civil Appeal – Suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale – Defendant’s contention that the property was sold to K.S.Thankachan, a nominee of the plaintiff, not pleaded in the written statement and not proved by evidence – Variation between pleadings and evidence – Well-settled principle that parties must adhere to their pleadings – Relief cannot be granted on issues not raised in pleadings – Evidence not in conformity with pleadings cannot be relied upon – Trial courts must work within the scope of pleadings and evidence – Appeal dismissed with costs to be borne by respective parties. [Para 4-27]

In the provided judgment, the legal maxim “Secundum allegata et probate” is implicitly referred to. This Latin maxim means “according to what is alleged and proved.” It emphasizes that in legal proceedings, the case presented and the evidence provided should align with what has been alleged or pleaded. If something is not pleaded in the case, it should not be the basis for a decision. This principle is consistent with the requirement that parties must adhere to their pleadings, and evidence should not deviate from what has been specifically pleaded in the case.

Revision Petition – Evidence Closure 

The petitioner-defendant No.1 seeks to overturn the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate's order dated 04.09.2023, which closed his evidence due to his failure to appear in court during the trial. [Para 1-2]

Opportunities Granted – Multiple Opportunities 

The Court remarks that 10 effective opportunities were afforded to the petitioner-defendant No.1 for leading his evidence. However, the defendant availed only three of these opportunities, leading the trial Court to close his evidence. [Para 6]

Health Condition – Genuine Excuse 

The petitioner asserts his non-appearance on 04.09.2023 was on account of genuine health issues, backed by a medical card (Annexure P-5). [Para 3]

Legal Technicalities – Merit-based Decisions 

The Court opines that matters should be decided on their merits, cautioning against non-suiting parties solely based on technicalities. [Para 6]

Decision – Order Set Aside 

The Punjab and Haryana High Court sets aside the trial Court's decision, granting the petitioner one final opportunity to present his evidence, provided he pays ₹5,000 in costs to the plaintiff. [Para 7]

Arbitration and Conciliation – Challenge to Arbitral Award – NHAI challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Dissenting award by one of the arbitrators. NHAI objected to the quantum of damages awarded based on delay in handing over the site. [Para 1-2]

Contractual Agreement – Scope of Concession Agreement – Arbitral Award in the context of a Concession Agreement dated 30.01.2006, related to design, construction, development, finance, operation, and maintenance of a specified section of NH-7 in Tamil Nadu. Contractor awarded different sums against the various claims raised. [Para 2-4]

Defence – Statement of Defence by NHAI – NHAI denied the claims for additional costs, damages, and losses. Argued that the Concession Agreement doesn't provide safeguards for defaults by either of the parties. [Para 5]

Applicability of Contractual Clauses – Dispute over applicability of sub-clauses 13.5.1 and 13.5.2 of the Agreement versus sub-clause 31.2 read with Section 55 and 73 of the Indian Contract Act for calculating damages. [Para 6-8]

Legal Interpretation – Arbitral Tribunal's Award – The tribunal held that sub-clause 31.2 of the Concession Agreement was applicable for material breach by NHAI that affected and delayed the Commercial Operation Date (COD). [Para 9-11]

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference under Section 34 – Court held that its role is not as a court of first appeal and interference with the arbitral award would only be warranted in cases of patent illegality or perversity, in line with the Supreme Court ruling in MMTC Ltd. vs Vedanta Ltd. [Para 12]

Decision – Court’s View – The court found the Arbitral Tribunal's award to be in conformity with the applicable sub-clauses and rejected NHAI's petition challenging the award. [Para 11-12]

Conviction and Sentence – Trial and Appellate Courts – Petitioner convicted under Sections 279 and 304A IPC by the trial court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months for respective offences. Both sentences to run concurrently. Appeal against the judgment dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. [Para 1-2]

Revision Petition – Grounds for Acquittal – Petitioner contends that both Courts below erred in convicting him without cogent evidence. Issues raised include lack of evidence to establish identity, unexplained delay in lodging FIR, and absence of key witnesses including the Investigating Officer. Alternative submission made regarding compromise with legal heirs of the deceased. [Para 4-5]

Prosecution's Version – Accident and Investigation – Prosecution describes the accident involving a tractor trolley and a truck, resulting in injuries and one death. Accused was arrested, and formalities completed before presenting the challan in Court. [Para 6]

Trial Court Proceedings – Charges and Acquittal – Accused charge-sheeted under multiple sections but acquitted under Sections 337 & 427 IPC. Conviction under Sections 279 & 304A IPC upheld by Appellate Court. [Para 7-8]

Identity of Accused – Key Issue – High Court finds that the identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle was not established. Prosecution's failure to examine the Investigating Officer and other key witnesses noted. [Para 9-10]

Evidence and Investigation – Lapses – Prosecution did not prove crucial aspects like the site plan, mechanical examination reports, or the identity of the truck's owner. [Para 10]

Decision – Revision Petition Allowed – High Court sets aside the impugned judgments of conviction recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court due to non-establishing of the identity of the accused-petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle. [Para 12]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act – Allegations of penetrative sexual assault on a child – Appellant convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment – Appeal against conviction – Medical examination of victim reveals no injury or signs of sexual assault – Prosecution's case questioned on grounds of falsity and improbability – Key points raised by the defense in support of innocence. [Para 12]

Evidence – Medical examination – Importance of medical reports in cases of sexual assault – No signs of injury or assault found during the medical examination of the victim – Examination of the appellant also reveals no indication of unnatural sexual offense – Significance of medical findings in assessing the credibility of the prosecution's case. [Para 16-19]

POCSO Act – Interpretation of Section 6 – Elements of penetrative sexual assault – Penetration is sufficient for the offense, regardless of semen emission or injury – Requirement of assessing the victim's statement in cases of sexual assault – The need for considering facts and circumstances in each case. [Para 20]

Inference – Medical report supports the defense's argument – Lack of injury or signs of sexual assault on the victim – Raises doubts about the veracity of the prosecution's case – Relevance of medical evidence in assessing the guilt of the accused – Conviction based on the victim's statement may not be sustainable without corroborating evidence. [Para 21]

Evidence – Medical Examination – Lack of injury on victim and appellant's private parts – Contradiction with the prosecution's claim of penetrative sexual assault – Significance of medical evidence in sexual assault cases. [Para 22-23]

Sexual Offences – Penetrative Sexual Assault – Necessity of injury in penetrative sexual assault – Reference to medical jurisprudence and legal provisions – Lack of evidence to support prosecution's claim. [Para 25-26]

Identification – Child victim's inability to identify the accused – Inconsistency with prosecution's claim – Impact on the case's credibility – Age of the victim and its relevance in the case. [Para 35-37]

Non-examination of material witnesses – Failure to produce a key witness – Adverse inference against the prosecution – Potential impact on case outcome. [Para 38]

Age of the child victim – Failure to prove the age of the victim – Insufficiency of evidence to establish the victim's age. [Para 40-41]

Decision – Conviction and sentence set aside – Immediate release of the appellant ordered – Direction for personal bonds and appearance in case of further legal proceedings. [Para 43-44]

Legal Proceedings - Quashing of summoning order and proceedings in a complaint case - Allegations of bigamy against the applicants - Lack of evidence to establish a valid second marriage - Malicious prosecution - Prima facie case not made out. [Para 3-13]

Court's Duty - Protection of apparently innocent persons from frivolous prosecution - Quashing of proceedings to prevent grave miscarriage of justice - Inherent power of the Court exercised in favor of the applicants. [Para 13]

Quashing of Proceedings - Impugned summoning order and further proceedings quashed - Complaint case against the applicants dismissed. [Para 14-15]

Matrimonial Appeal – Divorce Granted by Family Court – Appellant/Wife contests the divorce decree granted by the Family Court under Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing cruelty and desertion as grounds – Counterclaim filed by the Appellant for restitution of conjugal rights dismissed. [Para 1]

Factual Background – Parties were married on 17.02.2002 and separated in 2007 – Respondent/Husband filed for divorce alleging cruelty and desertion on the part of the Appellant/Wife. Allegations of Cruelty – Respondent accuses the Appellant of neglecting his family, refusing to perform household chores, and denial of conjugal relations – Asserts that Appellant’s behavior amounts to cruelty. [Para 2-5]

Family Court's Decision on Desertion – Family Court finds that the Respondent/Husband has failed to establish the ground of desertion – Observes that Appellant/Wife was willing to stay with the husband, who was not interested in keeping her. [Para 6]

Vague allegations of denial of conjugal relations – Birth of a girl child during the marriage refutes the claim of complete denial. [Para 17-18]

Supreme Court precedent on condonation of cruelty – The Respondent's refusal to reconcile and take back the Appellant. [Para 19-22]

The theory of breakdown of marriage not recognized under the Act – Powers of the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant divorce – Family Court's exercise of powers beyond its scope – Set aside the judgment granting divorce. [Para 23-28]

Appellant's appeal for restitution of conjugal rights not pressed in view of Supreme Court precedent – Dismissed. [Para 30-32]