Civil Procedure – DNA Test for Establishing Paternity in Partition Suit – Kerala High Court Decision on Strong Prima Facie Case Requirement.

DNA Test – Suit for partition involving claim of paternity – Plaintiff seeks sibling DNA test to establish her father was the deceased, Sri Kuttikrishnan Nair – Trial court allows application for DNA test – Defendants challenge the order in Kerala High Court – High Court evaluates evidence to determine if strong prima facie case exists for ordering DNA test – Court finds plaintiff’s evidence, mostly hearsay, insufficient to establish a strong prima facie case – High Court sets aside the trial court’s order allowing the DNA test, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence to justify such an intrusive procedure [Paras 1-19].

Evidence Evaluation – High Court scrutinizes evidence presented by the plaintiff – Plaintiff’s knowledge of paternity based on hearsay – Other witnesses also provide hearsay evidence – Court holds that a strong prima facie case must be established with concrete evidence to order a DNA test – DNA test should not be used as a fishing expedition for evidence [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Setting Aside Trial Court Order – Held – The trial court’s order allowing the DNA test is set aside due to lack of a strong prima facie case by the plaintiff – The court emphasizes the potential adverse impact of a DNA test on defendants and the requirement for substantial evidence before permitting such tests – Matter remanded to trial court for proceeding in accordance with law without the observations from the High Court’s judgment influencing the trial [Para 19].

Civil Procedure – Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC challenging dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 10 & 11 – The High Court examined the Trial Court's decision on territorial jurisdiction and limitation period – Petitioner's plea that the suit was barred by limitation rejected due to acknowledgment of debt by part payments and dishonored cheques – Revision petition dismissed with costs [Paras 1-13].

Limitation Period – Acknowledgment of Debt – High Court held that part payment and dishonored cheques extended the limitation period – Referenced Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Distinguished from previous cases where no such acknowledgment was present – Suit filed within the extended limitation period was deemed valid [Paras 8-12].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Trial Court's jurisdiction affirmed based on registered office location as per Memorandum of Association – Plaintiff's registered office in Delhi sufficient for jurisdiction despite invoices showing addresses in Gurgaon and Greater Noida [Para 4].

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – Held – The revision petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000 to be deposited with the Delhi High Legal Services Committee – High Court confirmed the Trial Court's findings on jurisdiction and limitation, upholding the suit's validity [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Sentencing for Conspiracy and Terrorism-related Offences – High Court considered appeals against sentences for various offences under the IPC and UAPA – Appellants had pleaded guilty and were sentenced to life imprisonment for the most serious offences – Appeals focused on the extent and legality of sentences, particularly challenging life sentences as unduly harsh – Court reduced life sentences to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, taking into account appellants' remorse, young age, and clean antecedents [Paras 1-59].

Plea of Guilt – Voluntariness and Legal Implications – Appellants contended their plea of guilt was akin to plea bargaining and not fully voluntary – High Court dismissed this contention, affirming that appellants were adequately informed of consequences and had time to reconsider – Plea of guilt considered voluntary and legally binding [Paras 8-15, 11].

Sentencing Principles – Application of Mitigating Factors – High Court balanced the gravity of offences with mitigating circumstances – Considered appellants' young age, remorse, and potential for rehabilitation – Court emphasized that sentencing should not be solely punitive but also aim at reformation – Reduced life sentences to ten years rigorous imprisonment for Section 121A IPC and Section 23 UAPA [Paras 36-59].

Decision – Modification of Sentences – Appeals allowed in part – Life sentences for offences under Section 121A IPC and Section 23 UAPA reduced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years – Sentences for other offences and monetary fines remained unaltered – Order for communication to Trial Court and Jail Authorities for compliance [Paras 59-62].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Validity of Magistrate’s Order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, FIR, and charge-sheet in PRC Case No. 2154/2021 – Allegation of second marriage by petitioner without dissolution of first marriage – Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing police investigation challenged for non-compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. – Held that the Magistrate’s order was justified, and investigation order at pre-cognizance stage did not indicate judicial cognizance of the offence – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-18]

Magistrate’s Discretion under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Analysis – Held – Magistrate is empowered to direct investigation at pre-cognizance stage and is not obligated to take cognizance immediately upon receiving a complaint – Application of judicial mind to allegations required before issuing process or directing investigation. [Paras 12-18]

Precedents and Judicial Interpretation – Invocation of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Supreme Court and High Court precedents underscore that Section 154 provisions are normally a prerequisite but allow for exceptions in direct magistrate applications – Compliance with procedural requirements stressed but not absolute. [Paras 6-7, 13-14, 16]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The Magistrate’s order for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. upheld as appropriate exercise of discretion – FIR and charge-sheet not quashed, and criminal proceedings allowed to continue. [Para 18]

Criminal Law – Acquittal in Case of Alleged Dowry Death and Cruelty – Appeal by State Dismissed – The High Court of Gujarat dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 302, 498(A), 306, 304(B), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a direct cause linking the alleged cruelty to the victim’s suicide, and that the evidence provided did not substantiate the charges sufficiently to overturn the acquittal. [Paras 1-18]

Evidence Evaluation – Lack of Sufficient Corroborative Evidence – The High Court found that the testimony of the complainant, which alleged frequent anger and taunting by the in-laws, lacked corroborative evidence of any demand for dowry or immediate provocation leading to the victim’s suicide. The absence of testimony from other relatives and critical witnesses weakened the prosecution’s case. [Paras 10-12]

Judicial Principles – Standard for Reversing Acquittal – Emphasizing the principle that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or manifestly erroneous, the High Court concluded that the trial court’s judgment did not meet the threshold for reversal. The decision of acquittal was upheld in light of the evidence on record. [Paras 13-15]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – The appeal by the State of Gujarat against the acquittal of the accused was dismissed. The High Court affirmed that the findings of the trial court were reasonable and plausible, thereby upholding the acquittal due to insufficient evidence to convict the accused of the alleged crimes. [Para 17]

Criminal Law – Kidnapping – Probation of Offenders – The appellant was convicted under Section 363 IPC and sentenced to three years of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300/-. On appeal, the appellant did not contest the conviction but sought the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The court noted that the appellant had no prior criminal record and had faced trial and its mental agony for over 31 years. Considering the appellant’s age (67 years) and peaceful conduct since release on bail, the court deemed it appropriate to extend the benefit of probation. [Paras 1-14]

Judicial Discretion – Sentencing – Rehabilitation – The court emphasized the reformative purpose of the Probation of Offenders Act, highlighting that probation aims to rehabilitate offenders without subjecting them to the negative effects of incarceration. The court referenced several precedents underscoring the importance of probation for first-time and minor offenders to promote their reintegration into society. [Paras 5-13]

Decision – Probation Granted – The court maintained the conviction but modified the sentence. The appellant was released on probation for two years, with conditions to maintain peace and good behavior. The appellant was required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each. The appellant’s bail bonds were cancelled, and he was granted two months to comply with the probation requirements. [Paras 14-15]
 

Domestic Violence – Proceedings under Section 12 of D.V. Act challenged – Petitioner claims respondent already receiving maintenance from salary and under Section 125 Cr.P.C – Magistrate issued notice for response, no interim monetary compensation ordered – Legal position on scope of notice under Section 12 clarified by Supreme Court – Petition dismissed, premature challenge by petitioner – Open to petitioner to pursue matter before trial Magistrate [Paras 1-9].

Limitation – Petition under Section 12 of D.V. Act not barred by limitation – Supreme Court held application under Section 12 need not be filed within one year of alleged acts of domestic violence – Petitioner's contention rejected as without substance [Para 8].

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – The petition lacks merit and is dismissed, petitioner directed to address the trial Magistrate as per legal procedure. [Para 9].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Compounding of Offence – Petitioners sought to compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act – Application dismissed by the appellate court due to lack of consent from the complainant – Court emphasized that consent of the complainant is essential for compounding under Section 147 of the N.I. Act – Distinguished from the Supreme Court’s rulings in M/s Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. And Damodar S. Prabhu, which stress the necessity of consent for compounding – Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. without complainant’s consent not permitted [Paras 1-20].

Jurisdiction and Powers of Courts – Section 147 of the N.I. Act – The court does not have inherent powers to compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act without the complainant’s consent – Reference made to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Raj Reddy Kallem, reinforcing the necessity of complainant’s consent [Paras 13-14].

Decision- Petition dismissed – Upheld the order of the Additional District Judge – Reiterated the requirement of complainant’s consent for compounding under Section 147 of the N.I. Act – Rejected the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the absence of complainant’s consent [Para 20].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Quashing of Complaint – Petitioner sought quashing of complaint and proceedings under Section 138 NIA – Petitioner argued entire liability had been discharged prior to complaint – Court noted petitioner made payments exceeding the cheque amount – Respondent’s claim for interest not a ground for maintaining the complaint – Held, once cheque amount is paid and accepted, Section 82 NIA applies, discharging liability [Paras 1-31].

Interest Claim – Section 138 NIA – Whether dishonor of cheque issued for interest on delayed payment constitutes legally enforceable debt – Court held, in absence of specific demand and agreement for interest in complaint, interest cannot form basis for Section 138 NIA action – Presumption under Sections 118, 139 NIA applies only to principal amount [Paras 16-22, 25-28].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Complaint and all consequential proceedings quashed – Court directed release of remuneration for legal aid counsel as per rule [Paras 29-31].