Judicial Procedure - Compliance with statutory requirements for declaring an individual as a "proclaimed person" or "proclaimed offender" - Importance of thorough documentation and adherence to procedural guidelines - Quashing of FIR and all consequential proceedings due to lack of compliance with statutory requirements. [Para 13-15]

Guidelines for Issuance of Proclamation - Deliberation on previous efforts to secure the individual's presence - Requirements for publication of proclamation, including public reading, affixation at the individual's residence, and court premises - Period of not less than thirty days between publication and appearance date - Publication in a daily newspaper if deemed necessary - Declaration as "proclaimed person" or "proclaimed offender" based on the nature of the offense - Exercise of discretion in invoking criminal liability under Section 174A of IPC, considering various factors - Formal written complaint for initiating criminal proceedings. [Para 19]

Guidelines for Issuance of Proclamation:

• Deliberation on previous efforts to secure the individual's presence

• Requirements for publication of proclamation, including public reading, affixation at the individual's residence, and court premises

• Period of not less than thirty days between publication and appearance date

• Publication in a daily newspaper if deemed necessary

• Declaration as "proclaimed person" or "proclaimed offender" based on the nature of the offense

• Exercise of discretion in invoking criminal liability under Section 174A of IPC, considering various factors

• Formal written complaint for initiating criminal proceedings. [Para 19]

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's exclusion from the final category list of KEAM 2023 was illegal due to the absence of a stipulation regarding the mandatory submission of the NEET score card. The court, after referring to a previous writ petition, found no grounds for interfering with the ongoing admission process. Justice Kunhikrishnan highlighted the necessity of maintaining the admission schedule and avoiding disruption to other candidates. The court dismissed the writ petition while emphasizing the need for clarity in future prospectuses regarding the submission of score cards.

Criminal Revision Petition – Dismissal Upheld – Revision petitioner, Lalitha, aggrieved by the Magistrate’s dismissal of her complaint alleging forgery and conspiracy under Sections 120(b), 420, 465, 468 & 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC. High Court upheld the Magistrate’s decision, finding no sufficient ground for proceeding against the respondents. [Para 1-2]

Evidentiary Burden – Failure to Substantiate – Lalitha alleged that her signature was forged in legal documents, causing loss of property. High Court noted her failure to produce any reliable material to substantiate her allegations, leading to the dismissal of her revision petition. [Para 3, 11]

Magistrate’s Discretion under Section 203 Cr.P.C. – Explained – High Court elaborated on the conditions under which a Magistrate may dismiss a complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the Magistrate is to consider whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. [Para 7-8]

Credibility of Complainant – Questioned – High Court pointed out the significant time lapse between Lalitha’s claimed discovery of the forgery and the filing of her complaint, raising questions about her credibility and intentions. [Para 7, 10]

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Clarified – High Court clarified that the revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with appellate jurisdiction. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Magistrate’s well-reasoned decision. [Para 13]

Transfer Petition – Denial of Opportunity for Hearing – Petitioners aggrieved by the District Judge, Gurugram’s dismissal of their transfer application for Civil Suit No. CS/1615/2023. The petitioners claimed they were denied a fair hearing, causing apprehension of not receiving justice. Revision petition filed in the High Court. [Para 1-2]

Counsel’s Arguments – Opposition and Support – Counsel for petitioners argued for the necessity of a transfer due to denial of fair hearing. Respondents’ counsel opposed, stating no haste was displayed by the trial court. Counsel for proforma respondent no.3 supported the petitioners. [Para 4-6]

Court’s Observation – Temperament and Decorum – High Court observed that heated exchanges between counsel and Presiding Officer were not sufficient grounds for transfer. Emphasized the need for both Presiding Officers and Bar Members to maintain court decorum. [Para 7-8]

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – High Court found no illegality in the District Judge’s order and dismissed the revision petition. However, directed the concerned court to ensure a fair hearing to all parties in future proceedings. [Para 9-10]

Right to Information (RTI) – Denial of RTI application under Sec.8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 – Petitioner, a lecturer, seeks information about service particulars of certain individuals for redressal of grievances in service-related matters – Petitioner contends error in construing Sec.8(1)(j) – Court finds petitioner not a stranger to the institution and entitled to service particulars for addressing grievances – Reliance on Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case denied, as it had a different fact matrix – Court holds that decisions are authorities for specific facts, not universally logical propositions – Petitioner justified in needing service particulars for availing benefits of government order – Impugned order quashed, and respondent directed to furnish information within three weeks, with penalties for delay. [Para 1-5]

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Permission to file a fresh suit in a decree – The trial court granted permission to file another suit in a decree, allowing for a fresh suit on the same cause of action. However, this practice is inconsistent with the principles of res judicata and the Code of Civil Procedure, as a decree should conclusively determine the rights of the parties. The power to grant liberty for a fresh suit can only be exercised under Order XXIII Rule 1 and 2 CPC when an application is submitted seeking permission to withdraw the suit. Such power cannot be extended while drawing a decree in a suit. The third suit based on the liberty granted in the decree is not sustainable and is hit by Section 11 CPC and the doctrine of constructive res judicata. [Para 2-4]

Binding Precedent – Disregard of established legal position – The trial court dismissed an application challenging the maintainability of a third suit without adhering to the legal position settled by the High Court, as presented in the case of Rosamma Stella Florence v. Lazar Nadar [2017 (4) KHC 38]. This disregard for established legal principles and failure to provide a valid reason for deviation cannot be sustained and is against the principle of binding precedent. The impugned order is set aside. [Para 3]

Remand for Settlement – Possibility of settlement explored – The petitioner’s counsel requested a remand to explore the possibility of settlement in the matter. The case is remanded back to the trial court for this purpose, and the parties are to appear before the trial court on 25/09/2023. If no settlement is reached within two weeks from that date, the application challenging the suit’s maintainability will be allowed, and the suit will be dismissed. [Para 4]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal of Respondents – Appellant Tek Chand under Section 372 of the CrPC challenges the acquittal of respondents Ashok, Shobha Ram, Yogesh, Rakesh, and Rukamesh for offenses under Sections 147, 148, 302, 452 & 506 IPC. The appellant contends that the acquittal was improperly granted, with no representative present for the appellant during hearings. [Para 1, 2, 20]

Prosecution Case – Indiscriminate Firing Leading to Murders – Tek Chand and others were sitting when accused, armed with rifles and revolvers, arrived in two cars. Accused fired indiscriminately, resulting in the death of three individuals. Tek Chand filed an FIR based on the incident. [Para 3, 4]

Investigation and Arrest – Charge Sheet Filed, Accused Abscond – Accused Ashok absconded during the trial, and the case was transferred to CBCID for further investigation. All accused were formally arrested in 2008 for this case. [Para 5, 6]

Evidence – Eyewitnesses and Alibi – The prosecution based its case mainly on the testimony of two eye-witnesses, Tek Chand (PW-1) and Inderjeet Singh (PW-5). Defence produced evidence showing that accused Ashok, Shobha Ram, and Yogesh were in jail during the time of the incident, establishing an alibi. [Para 7-14]

Credibility of Witnesses – Inconsistencies and Omissions – No medical evidence presented for injuries sustained by Kiran. Other potential eye witnesses were not examined. The learned Additional Sessions Judge noted these gaps while giving the benefit of doubt to the accused. [Para 15-17]

State's Leave to Appeal – Questioning Acquittal – The State has also sought leave to appeal against the acquittal, alleging that the Trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence at hand. [Para 18-21]

Decision – Appeal Unrepresented, Alibi Accepted – In the absence of any representative for the appellant and due to the compelling nature of the alibi presented by the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted the benefit of doubt to the accused, resulting in their acquittal. [Para 17, 21]

Civil Services Examination – Challenge to CSAT Paper-II – Petitioners challenging questions in CSAT Paper-II as being out of syllabus – Petitioners contending that questions were of Class XI & XII level, contrary to syllabus prescribed – Tribunal dismissing Original Application – Tribunal acknowledging UPSC’s unblemished reputation in conducting examinations – Tribunal recognizing limitations of its jurisdiction to question academic experts’ decision on question paper – Tribunal rejecting argument that questions being of higher level should intimidate candidates for highest Civil Services – Tribunal declining to interfere with examination process of magnitude unless statutory violations or blatant miscarriage of justice shown – Tribunal emphasizing that decision on question paper not amenable to judicial review – Tribunal affirming UPSC’s transparent, fair, and objective conduct of examination – Tribunal holding that panel of academic experts’ decision on question paper not for judicial review unless manifestly arbitrary, malafide, or illegal – Petition dismissed. [Para 1-13]

Examination Conduct – Cancellation of Candidature – Damage to OMR Sheet – Held: Petitioner's candidature for the post of Hindi Lecturer was rightfully cancelled due to damage caused to the OMR sheet by scratching an answer, despite having scored more marks than the last selected candidate. The decision was in line with instructions issued to maintain the integrity of the examination process and prevent malpractice. [Paras 1-10]

Definition and Implications of ‘Damage’ – Instruction Compliance – Held: The court rejected the argument that the literal dictionary definition of 'damage' should be applied. Instead, it emphasized the administrative need to prevent any form of cheating or tampering, supporting the Commission's broader interpretation of 'damage'. Petitioner's evaluation despite the damage did not entitle him to appointment. [Para 9]

Decision – Upholding Cancellation – The court upheld the Commission's decision to cancel the petitioner's candidature, finding no violation of principles of natural justice or arbitrariness. The petition is dismissed. [Para 10]