Criminal Law - Writ of Mandamus and Transfer of Investigation -  Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to transfer investigation of Crime No. 212/2024 from Mannanthala Police Station to a higher-ranking officer, preferably of IPS cadre - Petitioner, a healthcare professional, alleges biased investigation due to political influence - Court finds ongoing investigation without bias, despite delay in arrest - Directs Investigating Officer to conduct fair and unbiased investigation - Petition disposed of with liberty to petitioner to re-approach if investigation seems improper. [Paras 1-4, 13]

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail -  Bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the accused in the same crime - Allegations of molestation and abuse of a doctor in her clinic - Prosecution provides substantial evidence including victim's statement and CCTV footage - Court emphasizes necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation - Anticipatory bail denied considering seriousness of allegations and the non-bailable nature of offences under amended Healthcare Act. [Paras 5-12]

Trend of Violence Against Healthcare Professionals -  Court notes increasing instances of violence against doctors and hospital staff - Refers to legislative amendment making such offences non-bailable - Highlights the need for strict enforcement to deter such crimes - Upholds importance of custodial interrogation in serious cases involving healthcare professionals to ensure thorough investigation. [Paras 11-12]

Decision:- Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3364 of 2024 dismissed.- Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 385 of 2024 disposed of, directing current Investigating Officer to continue investigation fairly.

Criminal Law – Offences under Sections 354, 294(b), 323 IPC and Section 4(1)(i) of Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Amendment Act, 2023 – Petition for transfer of investigation and anticipatory bail – High Court’s dismissal of bail application and writ petition – Importance of custodial interrogation emphasized by Court – Judicial scrutiny upheld the need for arrest to ensure thorough investigation – Dismissal of anticipatory bail based on severity of allegations and existing evidence [Paras 1-12].

Evidence Evaluation – Court evaluated statements and case diary indicating prima facie evidence supporting the complainant’s allegations – Court found allegations credible and necessitated further investigation, rejecting anticipatory bail – Judicial scrutiny confirmed investigation was conducted appropriately without bias, but with an emphasis on necessity for arrest and custodial interrogation [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Dismissal of Bail Application and Disposition of Writ Petition – Held – Bail application was dismissed due to serious nature of allegations and necessity for custodial interrogation – Writ petition for transfer of investigation dismissed as current investigation was deemed satisfactory – Defacto complainant given liberty to re-approach the Court if further issues with investigation arise. [Para 13].

Administrative Law - Doctrine of Pleasure - Validity of Removal – Writ Petition challenging removal from the post of Chairman of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission – Petitioner contended removal was arbitrary, capricious, and without following principles of natural justice – Respondent argued removal was per the doctrine of pleasure as stated in Section 4 of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act, 1994 – Court held that doctrine of pleasure allows removal without assigning reasons and without adhering to principles of natural justice – Petitioner's removal held valid as the statute provides for such action under the doctrine of pleasure. [Paras 10-13]

Judicial Review - Scope and Limitations – The scope of judicial review in cases of removal under the doctrine of pleasure – Court held that the power to remove is inherent under Section 4 of the Act, and judicial review is limited unless the removal is proven to be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable – In this case, the petitioner's removal did not warrant interference as it was per statutory provisions. [Para 13-14]

Statutory Interpretation - Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission Act, 1994 – Interpretation of terms "subject to the pleasure of the Government" – Court observed that Section 4 explicitly states the tenure is subject to the pleasure of the Government, distinguishing it from Section 5 which deals with disqualification for misconduct – No violation of statutory or constitutional rights found in the removal process. [Paras 8-11]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the removal of the petitioner from the position of Chairman of the Karnataka State Minorities Commission – Confirmed that the removal was within the legal framework of the doctrine of pleasure and did not require adherence to the principles of natural justice. [Para 20]

Civil Procedure – Compensation for Land and Trees – Revision petition by Power Grid Corporation against the order of the District Court awarding enhanced compensation for trees cut and diminution in land value due to the drawing of high tension electric lines – Respondent’s property affected significantly, with trees cut and land rendered less valuable – District Court awarded compensation based on oral evidence, documents, and site-specific factors – High Court upheld the compensation, dismissing the revision petition for lack of illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. [Paras 1-6]

Land Valuation – Assessment of Diminution – Analysis – Held – District Court’s valuation of land and trees justified based on evidence and site-specific considerations – Compensation for trees and diminution in land value appropriately calculated – Court’s discretion exercised correctly in awarding 30% land value for affected area and 100% for the tower footing area. [Para 2-3]

Judicial Discretion – Interest on Compensation – Argument by petitioner regarding improper awarding of interest dismissed – High Court noted that the District Court’s decision to award 9% interest per annum was within its discretion and in line with legal precedents. [Para 5-6]

Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – High Court found no grounds to interfere with the District Court’s order under Section 115 CPC – Compensation order for the respondent upheld in full. [Para 6]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Summoning Orders and Complaints – Criminal petitions filed against summoning orders of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate – Allegations of forgery and fabrication of trade mark registration certificates – Complaint filed under Sections 463, 464, 465, 469, 470, 471, 474, 475, 477-A of IPC – Held that the foundational facts for initiation of prosecution under Section 193 of IPC necessitate verifying the authenticity of the documents from the Trade Marks Registry – Complaint under Section 340 CrPC filed by the respondents concerning the same documents – Bar under Section 195(1)(b) of CrPC applied – Complaint and summoning orders quashed. [Paras 1-33]

Forgery – Prima Facie Case – Analysis – Held – The alleged forgery of trade mark registration certificates requires verification from the Trade Marks Registry – The Deputy Registrar admitted issuance of the certificate – No evidence of seals or signatures being forged – The alleged forgery was not established – Proceedings deemed improper. [Para 12-22]

Maintainability of Complaint – Section 195 CrPC – Bar Applied – Held – If the alleged forgery is central to an offense requiring a court complaint, splitting offenses is not permissible – Complaint under Section 340 CrPC already pending on the same facts – Maintaining a private complaint would lead to evasion of the statutory bar – Complaint and summoning orders quashed as impermissible under Section 195(1)(b) of CrPC. [Paras 23-30]

Decision – Quashing of Summoning Orders and Complaints – The Court quashed the summoning orders and complaints against the petitioners, holding that the bar under Section 195(1)(b) of CrPC applied – The continuation of proceedings against the petitioners was found to be an abuse of the process of law. [Paras 31-33]

Criminal Law – Appeal against denial of bail under Sections 120-B & 153-A IPC and Sections 17, 18, 18B, 20, 22, 38 & 39 of UAPA – High Court upheld denial of bail due to substantial evidence against the appellant, including involvement in PFI’s activities aimed at establishing Islamic Caliphate, radicalizing youths, and facilitating terrorist training – Appellant’s past association with SIMI and role in PFI’s National Executive Council corroborated involvement – Appeal dismissed based on prima facie evidence supporting charges under UAPA [Paras 1-113].

Evidence Evaluation – High Court found statements of protected witnesses and documentary evidence sufficient to establish prima facie case – Witnesses detailed appellant’s role in radicalizing and training for jihad, managing funds for terrorist activities, and making inflammatory speeches – Court emphasized necessity of considering totality of evidence without detailed evaluation at bail stage [Paras 60-92].

Medical Grounds – Appellant’s plea for bail on medical grounds due to Parkinson’s disease and other ailments rejected – Court noted previous directions ensuring appellant’s treatment in AIIMS with appropriate care – Lack of cooperation from appellant regarding medical treatment noted – Further medical review allowed if condition worsens [Paras 99-107].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – Appeal against denial of bail dismissed – High Court confirmed prosecution’s case as prima facie true, found no violation of fundamental rights, and upheld trial court’s directions for medical care – Court directed trial to proceed without prejudice from observations in bail decision [Paras 108-114].

Criminal Procedure Code – Statutory Bail under Section 167(2) – Filing of Charge Sheet – Criminal revision petition against order rejecting statutory bail – Allegation of robbery at gunpoint – FIR registered and petitioner apprehended – Charge sheet filed electronically within 90 days but physically submitted after 90 days – Petitioner’s claim of right to statutory bail before physical submission – Court examines procedural compliance with e-filing rules and guidelines.

Statutory Right to Bail – E-Filing of Charge Sheet – Analysis – Held – E-filing recognized under guidelines and confirmed charge sheet filed electronically within statutory period – Physical submission delay immaterial if e-filing within period – Indefeasible right to bail extinguished once charge sheet e-filed within 90 days.

Decision – Dismissal of Bail Petition – Court finds electronic filing of charge sheet within statutory period suffices – Petitioner’s right to statutory bail ends with electronic filing – Petition dismissed.

Affiliation Fee – Discrepancy in Payment – Petitioner institute applied for annual affiliation for academic session 2024-25 – University’s online portal automatically generated fee details, showing a shortfall of Rs.60 – University demanded penalty equal to the amount of affiliation fee due to the shortfall – Petitioner argued automatic generation of details and non-intentional shortfall – High Court quashes university’s demand for full penalty, imposing a reduced penalty instead [Paras 2-16].

Procedural Fairness – Online Payment System – Petitioner contends that discrepancy arose from university’s online system generating incorrect fee details – High Court finds communication delay by university contributed to issue – Orders reduced penalty in lieu of full amount demanded [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned orders quashed – Petitioner to pay Rs.60 shortfall and Rs.1,00,000 penalty – Respondent to grant affiliation if all other requisites are fulfilled – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 16].

Criminal Law – FIR Quashing – Sections 420, 120-B IPC – Alleged Evasion of Stamp Duty – Petitioners sold property recorded as residential land in revenue records – FIR alleged commercial land sold as residential to evade stamp duty – Petitioners contended liability to pay stamp duty rests on purchaser – Court found no misdescription by petitioners regarding land use – FIR quashed [Paras 2-29].

Mens Rea – Essential Element of Crime – Absence of Criminal Intent – No False Declaration – Petitioners did not misrepresent land use – Absence of mens rea for evading stamp duty – Investigating Agency’s action deemed misuse of authority [Paras 20-27].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – High Court's Interference – Criminal Proceedings – FIR found inherently improbable – Allegations insufficient to make out prima facie case – Investigation not warranted [Paras 9-11, 26-29].

Decision: FIR in Crime No.88/2022 registered by EOW, Bhopal quashed. Petition allowed.