Maintenance – Restoration of Application – Family Court dismissed restoration application after maintenance petition was dismissed for non-prosecution – Petitioners argued no lack of diligence on their part – Court examined whether Family Court retained jurisdiction to recall orders in maintenance cases [Paras 1-11].

Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Magistrate's Jurisdiction – Statutory provisions indicate Magistrate may pass orders from time to time – Magistrate not functus officio post-final order in maintenance cases – Maintenance orders intended to provide immediate relief and prevent destitution [Paras 17-20, 37-38].

Section 362 Cr.P.C. – Embargo on Altering Judgments – Relaxation in maintenance proceedings – Family Court can entertain recall applications in maintenance cases under Sections 125-127 Cr.P.C. – Embargo of Section 362 Cr.P.C. does not apply strictly in maintenance cases due to their social welfare objective [Paras 21-23, 43-44].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Order by Family Court set aside – Matter remitted for fresh decision on restoration application – Emphasis on beneficent and purposive interpretation of maintenance provisions to achieve social justice [Paras 45-48].

Property Law – Ownership and Possession – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of disputed property through sale-deeds, sought declaration and permanent injunction – Trial court decreed in favor of plaintiffs – Defendants claimed property was state-owned, reserved for Kumbh Mela, and not identifiable – Appeal dismissed, trial court’s decree upheld, plaintiffs held to be rightful owners in possession [Paras 1-39].

Evidentiary Standards – Commission Reports and Boundaries – Plaintiffs provided sale-deeds with clear boundaries, supported by Commission reports and Survey Commissioner’s report – Defendants failed to prove claims of state ownership or that property was unsettled land – Court emphasized preponderance of probabilities standard, upheld plaintiffs’ evidence [Paras 20-37].

Procedural Defenses – Defendants’ objections under Section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and Order 7 Rule 11 CPC rejected – Court found no procedural bar to the suit – Detailed analysis of property records and witness testimonies confirmed plaintiffs’ claims [Paras 15-19, 32-36].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court confirmed the plaintiffs’ ownership and possession of disputed property – Defendants’ appeal found without merit, trial court’s judgment and decree affirmed [Paras 38-39].
 

Criminal Law – Unauthorized Abortion – Conviction under Section 314 IPC – Appellant accused of conducting an abortion leading to the death of the victim – Trial court’s conviction based on witness testimony and medical evidence – Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. challenging conviction and sentence – High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence considering the appellant’s age, lack of criminal antecedents, and societal position [Paras 1-11].

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Application of Section 4 – Appellant’s request for probation based on her first offence, poor socio-economic background, and the trauma of prolonged trial – State counsel did not object to the application of probation – High Court granted probation, releasing the appellant on a bond of good conduct for two years with conditions [Paras 12-20].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction affirmed but sentence modified – Appellant released on probation for two years with specific conditions and directed to deposit the fine imposed by the trial court – Failure to comply with conditions would result in the execution of the original sentence [Para 21].
 

Criminal Law – Bail in Rape and POCSO Case – Petitioner sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Allegations included following the victim, expressing intent to marry, forcibly taking her to a lodge, committing rape, and issuing threats – Victim’s age contested by petitioner based on school certificate used as age proof without birth/matriculation certificate – High Court granted bail citing lack of definitive age proof and delay in lodging complaint [Paras 1-7].

Evidence – Proof of Victim’s Age – Prosecution relied on school certificate to establish minor status of victim – No birth or matriculation certificate provided – Court acknowledged the need for authentic age verification documents, impacting the application of POCSO Act [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Bail granted with conditions: Petitioner to execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount. Petitioner to avoid tampering with or influencing prosecution witnesses. Petitioner to attend all court hearings and cooperate with the investigation.

Service Law – Termination of Temporary Employee – Petitioner challenged termination from the post of Mali after the reinstatement of the original incumbent, Shyam Besra, who was acquitted of criminal charges – Petitioner argued violation of Rule 67 of the Jharkhand Service Code, which mandates that a permanently vacated post should not be filled substantively until a year has lapsed – Petitioner also contested the termination without notice, arguing it violated natural justice and constitutional rights [Paras 1-10].

Contract Law – Validity of Conditional Appointment – Petitioner’s appointment was conditional, subject to the outcome of an appeal filed by Shyam Besra – Contested the validity of this condition under Sections 16 and 29 of the Indian Contract Act, arguing it created an undue influence and an uncertain tenure – Court held that conditional appointments are valid under specific circumstances, especially when the condition is clearly communicated and accepted [Paras 4-9].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Court examined the scope of judicial review in employment matters, particularly the termination of temporary employees – Emphasized that while the termination was not illegal, there was a need to consider the petitioner’s five years of service and the procedural fairness involved [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed of with Directions – Court directed the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondent no. 2 for reconsideration of his case – Ordered the respondent to consider the petitioner’s service history sympathetically and decide on his reappointment or compensation within twelve weeks – If adverse, a reasoned order must be communicated to the petitioner [Paras 13-14].

Taxation Law – DTVSV Act – Eligibility for Settlement – Petitioner’s appeal before CIT(A) dismissed for delay – Appeal pending before ITAT as on specified date under DTVSV Act – Rejection of application for settlement under DTVSV Act challenged – High Court held petitioner eligible for benefits as time for filing appeal before ITAT had not expired on specified date – Legislative intent of DTVSV Act to reduce litigation and expedite tax arrears collection emphasized – Revenue's interpretation contrary to objectives of DTVSV Act – Orders rejecting settlement benefits set aside [Paras 1-47].

Fiscal Policy – Legislative Intent – DTVSV Act – Objective to resolve tax disputes and expedite revenue collection – High Court affirmed liberal and purposive interpretation of beneficial legislation – Settled law that remedial statutes to be construed broadly to provide complete remedy – Reliance on Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments supporting liberal construction of fiscal statutes for achieving legislative goals [Paras 12-29, 36-45].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Rejection of Forms 1 and 2 under DTVSV Act set aside – Petitioner permitted to file Form-4 – Revenue directed to proceed with application in accordance with DTVSV Act – Emphasis on objective of timely revenue collection and reducing litigation backlog [Paras 46-47].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – The application for quashing the FIR was based on the grounds that the alleged cause of action occurred at Indore, and the FIR was lodged as a counter-blast to a divorce petition filed by the applicant. The Court held that the existence of a counter-blast motive and the different residence claims did not justify quashing the FIR as these are matters to be examined during the trial. The court cited precedents establishing that the pendency of a civil proceeding does not affect the validity of criminal proceedings [Paras 1-13].

Jurisdiction – FIR Lodgment and Investigation – It was contended that the FIR was lodged at Kareli, District Narsinghpur, where the respondent did not reside. The Court held that the jurisdiction of the FIR lodgment is valid if mental cruelty persists at the parental home, giving the local police jurisdiction to investigate. The presence of financial transactions linked to Kareli also supported jurisdiction [Paras 12-16].

Malafide Intentions – Role of Complainant’s Relatives – The applicants argued that the FIR was lodged maliciously due to the complainant's father's position as a practicing lawyer in Kareli. The Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the status of the complainant's relatives does not invalidate the FIR if it discloses a cognizable offence [Paras 17-20].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Transfer of FIR – The Court stated that if a Police Station lacks territorial jurisdiction, it must transfer the FIR to the appropriate station, but this does not provide grounds to quash the FIR initially lodged [Paras 21-22].

Errors in Framing Charges – Correction Mechanism – The Court addressed an error in naming while framing charges and clarified that such errors could be corrected through an application under Section 216 of the IPC during the trial, not a ground for quashing the charges [Paras 23-25].

Decision: Application dismissed. The Court found no merit in the arguments for quashing the FIR or charges and emphasized that these matters should be addressed during the trial [Paras 27-28].

Bail – NDPS Act – Grant of Bail – Petitioners charged with transportation of narcotics – Trial Court had granted bail to similarly placed co-accused – Petitioners alleged to be mere drivers with no previous criminal record – High Court grants bail considering parity and lack of previous criminal involvement [Paras 1-8].

Offence under NDPS Act – Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 8(c) – Petitioners accused of aiding in the transportation of narcotics – Arrest based on credible information and subsequent seizure – High Court observes that severity of charges alone does not preclude bail – Bail granted with conditions to ensure non-interference with investigation [Paras 1-8].

Conditions for Bail – Compliance and Consequences – Petitioners released on personal bond with sureties – Conditions include regular appearance before police and non-interference with the investigation – High Court warns of serious view on any breach leading to potential cancellation of bail [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Criminal petitions allowed – Bail granted to both petitioners with conditions – Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, closed [Paras 8].

Pension and Gratuity – Withholding due to Criminal Cases – Petitioner, a former lecturer, sought release of pensionary benefits – Criminal cases pending but no conviction – No departmental proceedings initiated – Held, pendency of criminal cases without conviction is not a ground for withholding pensionary benefits – Cited precedents affirming pension as a right, not bounty – Mandamus issued to release benefits within 12 weeks [Paras 1-17].

Legal Precedent – Right to Pension – Apex Court judgments highlight pension as a property right under Article 300A – D.S. Nakara case underscored pension as deferred salary – Other judgments reinforce that withholding pension/gratuity without statutory provision is impermissible [Paras 9-15].

Decision:

Writ Petition Allowed – Directed respondents to fix the petitioner’s pension considering the 6^th and 7^th pay revisions, and pay the amount of gratuity, leave encashment, and other benefits within 12 weeks from the date of the order [Para 16].