Criminal Miscellaneous Cases - Quashing of Proceedings - Accused conductors of buses charged under Section 190(2) read with Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) for wrongfully restraining students from boarding the buses - Alleged violation of standards related to road safety, noise control, and air pollution - Examination of whether conductors can be prosecuted under Section 190(2) - Absence of allegations regarding contravention of Section 146 (necessity for insurance against third-party risk) - Concerns about the prevalent practice of not allowing students to board buses - Court emphasizes equality between students and other passengers in boarding buses - Need for bus owners to address grievances regarding student concessions with the government - Direction to the State police chief to take appropriate actions to avert law and order problems arising from disputes between students and bus employees.

MV Act, 1988, Section 190(2) - Offence - Conductors of buses charged for wrongful restraint of students from boarding - Alleged violation of standards related to road safety, noise control, and air pollution - Court holds that prima facie, conductors cannot be prosecuted under Section 190(2) as they do not come within the purview of this section. (Para 5, 6)

MV Act, 1988, Section 196 - Offence - Accused conductors charged for violation of Section 196 by driving uninsured vehicles - Absence of allegations regarding contravention of Section 146 - Court concludes that no offence under Section 190(2) read with Section 196 is attracted based on the facts of the case. (Para 7, 8)

Concerns about Student Concessions - Court highlights the need for bus owners to address grievances related to student concessions with the government - Emphasizes equal treatment between students and other passengers in boarding buses - Directs the State police chief to issue necessary directions to avert law and order problems arising from disputes between students and bus employees at bus stands and stops. (Para 10)

Bail Application - Criminal Antecedents - Cyber Crime - Granting of Bail - Parameters for Consideration - Pre-Trial Incarceration - Imposition of Stringent Conditions - Role of Courts in Bail Petitions - Ensuring Fair Trial and Liberty of Accused - Technology and Identification Techniques - Impersonation - Alternative Bail Conditions - Restriction on Prepaid SIM Cards - Compliance and Enforcement - Balancing Rights and Liberties - Judicial Expediency in Cyber-Crime Cases - Thuggee and Cyber-Thuggee - Directions to Expedite Trial.

Civil Writ Petitions – Challenge to the notification issued by respondents splitting the post of Patwari into Junior and Senior Patwaris with different pay scales – Petitioners contending that the classification is arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Petitioners working as Patwaris under the Punjab Revenue Patwaris Class III Service Rules, 1966 – No distinction or classification of Senior or Junior Patwaris in the Cadre – Single unified Cadre of Patwaris maintained – Petitioners seeking parity in pay scale – Respondents claiming stagnation in the Cadre as reason for bifurcation – Apex Court’s decisions on equal pay for equal work and classification within a Cadre – Continuous wrong argued by petitioners to avoid delay bar – Court finding the classification arbitrary and violative of Article 14 – Notification quashed and set aside – Petitioners to be placed in higher pay scale with pay fixation to be done within four months – Arrears to be released in favor of petitioners.(Para No. 3, 4,, 9, 11, 16 ,19)

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Widow's right to enter temple - Archaic beliefs and discriminatory practices - Petitioner, widow of the former Poojari of Periyakaruparayan temple, seeks police protection to participate in temple festival - Respondents 5 and 6 objecting to petitioner's entry based on widowhood - Held, archaic beliefs and dogmas demeaning women have no place in a civilized society governed by rule of law - Widow retains status and identity, cannot be denied rights based on widowhood - Respondent police directed to ensure petitioner's and her son's safety and participation in the temple festival - Writ petition allowed.(Para No.4-5)

Facts: Conviction of the appellant for offenses including murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, and violation of the Bombay Money Lender's Act related to an incident on 18th November 2010. [Para 1-4]

Issues: Examination of the reliability of child witnesses, determination of intentional murder under section 302 of the IPC, and involvement in illegal money lending. [Para 8-9, 16]

Observations: No material contradictions in child witnesses' testimony, evidence proving intentional murder, and support for the charge of money lending against the appellant. [Para 8-9, 18-19, 20-24]

Decision: Confirmation of convictions under Section 363 of IPC (kidnapping), Section 302 of IPC (murder), and Section 32-B(b) of the Bombay Money Lending Act. Dismissal of the appeal. [Para 21, 23, 24, 27]

Facts: The petitioner sought to quash orders related to the appointment of a Lambardar. Multiple candidates applied for the position after Arjan Singh’s death. The petitioner was 30 years old with a 10+2 qualification, while respondent No.5 was 40 years old with a criminal case registered against him (FIR No.94 dated 20.07.2005) under Sections 325, 323, 148, 149 of IPC. The District Collector appointed respondent No.5 despite these facts.

Issues: The primary issue was the selection process for the Lambardar appointment. The petitioner challenged the decision, citing age, qualification, and the criminal case against respondent No.5 as factors that were not properly considered.

Observations:The Court observed that although respondent No.5’s prosecution in the FIR was acknowledged, the authorities did not consider this when making the decision. Additionally, the petitioner’s age and qualifications were not given proper weight. The Court referred to the precedent in Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram, establishing that when candidates’ merits are equal, the younger candidate should be preferred.

Decision: The Court found the impugned orders flawed and set them aside. The case was remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision, with proper consideration of the merits of all three candidates, the petitioner’s age, qualifications, and the criminal prosecution of respondent No.5. The Collector was directed to decide promptly, preferably within two months.

Civil Revision - Rejection of plaint - Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Revision petition challenging the order rejecting the application - Suit for declaration of ownership and related claims - Allegations of oral partition amongst brothers in earlier suit - Plaintiffs filed a fresh suit seeking declaration of ownership - Defendant moved application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint on the ground of res judicata - Trial Court dismissed the application - Revision filed before the High Court - Principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Whether a plaint can be rejected on the ground of res judicata - Scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and inherent powers of the Court - Res judicata as a ground for rejection of the plaint - Examination of the statements in the plaint - Plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of material outside the plaint - Principles laid down by recent Supreme Court judgment - Rejection of plaint upheld, but liberty granted to raise an issue of maintainability of the suit before the trial Court - Trial Court to consider framing a preliminary issue regarding the plea of res judicata - Petition dismissed. [Para 1-13]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under POCSO Act – Appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 6 @ 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for sexually assaulting a 4½-year-old girl – Accused sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and fined Rs. 5,000/- – Appellant contended non-examination of vital witnesses and contradictions in statements – Public Prosecutor argued child’s truthful testimony – Appeal dismissed [Para 2, 5.3, 5.4, 7].

Evidence – Victim’s Testimony – Court found evidence of the victim convincing – Child’s statement to pediatrician and testimony of other witnesses considered credible – Defense counsel criticized for inappropriate questions to young victim – Non-examination of certain witnesses not fatal to the case [Para 6.1, 6.2].

Societal Concern – Sexual Assault on Minors – Court expressed concern over the safety of young girls – Emphasized need for strict laws and effective implementation to eradicate sexual assault – Conviction and sentence need no interaction [Para 6.3, 6.4].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, confirmed [Para 7].

Civil Appeal – Compensation and Title Dispute – Aggrieved by the trial court’s judgment, the appellants/plaintiffs filed this appeal challenging the decree passed by the trial court. [Para 1]

Evidence – Authenticity of Unregistered Will – Plaintiffs claimed ownership based on an unregistered Will but failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove its authenticity. The scribe and attestors were not examined, weakening the plaintiffs’ case. [Para 15]

Government’s Claims – Suit lands classified as assessed waste lands – Defendants presented documentary evidence showing suit lands were classified as assessed waste lands, with no D.K.T. pattas granted. Defendants 6 and 7 were in possession and enjoyment of the land. The plaintiffs’ reliance on documents, including an Adangal and Passbook, was undermined by the dubious authenticity of related records. [Para 16-22]

Maintainability of the Suit – Plaintiffs sought a declaration of their right to receive compensation – Court suggested their claim for compensation could be more appropriate if they established title and possession, given the compensation’s dependence on ownership. [Para 24-25]

Conclusion – Court upheld trial court’s findings – Plaintiffs failed to establish ownership, possession, and entitlement to compensation – Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s judgment confirmed. [Para 28-29]