Service Law – Examination – Judicial Review of Answer Key – Manifest Error in Law – Interference Warranted - Petitioners challenged the official answer key for Question No. 28 in Set 'K', concerning a Magistrate’s power under Cr.P.C. – Court found that the correct answer was both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, whereas HSSC had opted only for cognizable – Held: Where the answer is manifestly wrong and statutory provision (Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.) clearly provides otherwise, Court can interfere even in academic matters – Answer key to that extent is incorrect [Paras 7-12].

Answer Key – Expert Committee Report – Limited Interference – No Roving Inquiry by Court - While answer to Question No. 28 was found to be clearly erroneous in law, Court refused to interfere with answers to other questions like Question No. 94 where dispute was based on comparison between different sets – Held: Court is not an expert body and will not conduct roving inquiry unless manifest illegality is shown [Paras 13-14].

Recruitment Process – Consistency Across Multiple Sets – Responsibility of Examining Body - Court noted concern that differing answers across question paper sets for identical questions leads to confusion and litigation – Suggested that recruitment bodies must ensure internal consistency across all versions of papers [Para 16].

Decision – Petition Partly Allowed – Answer Key Rectified for Question No. 28 – Matter Remitted - Court held that HSSC’s answer to Question No. 28 in Set 'K' was legally incorrect – Directed Commission to re-evaluate the performance of petitioners in light of the correct answer and take further action as per rules – No interference made with other disputed questions [Paras 15-16].

Advocates Act, 1961 - Professional Misconduct – No Advocate-Client Relationship – Complaint Dismissed – The appellant alleged professional misconduct against advocates representing opposing parties in an NI Act case – Bar Council of Delhi dismissed the complaint for lack of fiduciary relationship – The BCI affirmed that no professional misconduct is made out as the advocates acted per their client's instructions and no duty exists to verify client claims – Dismissal upheld [Paras 1.1–1.2, 6].

Advocate’s Duty – Representation Based on Client Instructions – No Obligation to Investigate Case Merits – The Court reiterated that an advocate cannot be faulted for representing a client without independently verifying the client’s version – Held: The duty of truth verification lies with the Court, not the advocate – No misconduct for representing a client whose case may later be held untrue [Paras 1.2–1.3, 7].

Rule 4, BCI Rules – Not a Bar on Representation – Rule Misinterpreted – The appellant argued that Rule 4 prohibits being a ‘mere mouthpiece’ – Court clarified that this rule does not mandate preliminary inquiry into a client's claims – No violation of ethical standards found [Para 1.3].

Fiduciary Duty – Opposing Counsel Not Bound – The Court held that lawyers representing adverse parties owe no fiduciary duty to the appellant – No professional breach arises without a lawyer-client relationship – Complaint under Section 35 of Advocates Act found untenable [Paras 4, 6].

Alleged Perjury – Independent Criminal Remedy Available – Allegations of fabricated evidence already subject to proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Held: Such issues are for determination by the concerned court, not through disciplinary action against opposing counsel [Para 5].

Decision – Intra-Court Appeal Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – The High Court found no illegality in the Single Judge’s order rejecting writ petition against Bar Council orders – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 8–9].

Civil Law - Land Acquisition – Minority Educational Institution – Article 30(1A) of the Constitution – Colourable Exercise of Power – Acquisition Set Aside – The State, being constitutionally barred from directly acquiring the land of a linguistic minority school without a special law under Article 30(1A), entered into a compromise to acquire adjacent landowners’ property instead, to compensate the school – Held: Such acquisition, based on a private arrangement, does not qualify as a “public purpose” under Section 3(f) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The proceedings amounted to a dubious method to circumvent constitutional restrictions – Entire acquisition proceedings including notification under Section 4(1) set aside [Paras 6, 10–11].

Public Purpose – Scope under Section 3(f) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Limited to schemes by Government or statutory authorities – Acquisition for a private school cannot be deemed as public purpose – Reliance on compromise to acquire adjacent private land invalid – Distinction drawn with cases where public purpose was accepted for religious or community needs [Paras 7–9].

Compensation – Applicability of 2013 Act – Though acquisition is invalid, possession already taken and land handed to school – Appellants entitled to compensation in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – State directed to calculate and pay compensation, upon which appellants to execute conveyance deed at State’s expense [Paras 11–12].

Decision – Writ Appeal allowed – Land Acquisition proceedings and award in OP(C) No. 1802 of 2011 set aside – Compensation to be paid under 2013 Act [Para 12].

Temporary Injunction – Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC – Trespasser vs. True Owner – Refusal of relief – Plaintiff sought injunction on basis of alleged long possession over Survey No.643; no sale deed or lawful title produced; Khasra entry of 1990–91 held baseless—Held: Injunction cannot be granted to protect unlawful possession against true owner; concurrent findings of Civil Court and Appellate Court upheld [Paras 14–20].

Revenue Entries – Section 115 MP Land Revenue Code – Collector’s permission mandatory – Orders quashed – SDO ordered correction of entries without Collector’s recommendation; appellate orders affirmed same—Held: Though findings justified on merits, procedure under Section 115 must be complied with; orders of 26.11.2019 and 05.04.2021 quashed; matter remanded to SDO to obtain Collector’s permission and pass fresh orders [Para 21].

Decision – M.P. No.1564/2022 dismissed (no injunction) – M.P. No.1722/2021 partly allowed by quashing revenue appellate orders; case remanded to SDO for fresh decision [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Cheating & Breach of Trust – Settlement through MOU – Complainant alleged misuse of signatures and cheating of ₹4 crores – FIR 355/2008 registered – During investigation, parties entered into MOU (14.06.2008) where petitioners paid ₹5 crores in full and final settlement, both agreed to withdraw civil/criminal cases – Once complainant accepted benefit, he cannot later approbate and reprobate by filing fresh complaints – Criminal proceedings for same allegations unsustainable [Paras 7-11].

Closure Report – Effect – FIR 355/2008 closed as civil in nature, accepted by Trial Court on 05.08.2011 – Protest petition later dismissed for default – Subsequent protest petition after long delay impermissible – Once closure report accepted, criminal proceedings attain finality – Fresh complaints barred [Paras 9, 12, 13].

Further Investigation – Limits – Trial Court ordered reinvestigation u/s 156(3) CrPC in 2018 – Held improper – Power to direct further investigation is extraordinary and sparingly exercisable – Where closure report based on settlement already accepted, directing reinvestigation defeats finality – Reliance placed on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762 [Paras 12, 13].

Doctrines – Estoppel & Approbate/Reprobate – Complainant, having received ₹5 crores in settlement, estopped from denying binding effect of MOU – Cannot blow hot and cold – Repeated complaints constitute abuse of process [Para 11].

Standard for Discharge – At charge stage, Court must examine if prima facie case exists – Here, entire case rested on allegations already settled – No new evidence unearthed in further investigation – Cognizance by Magistrate held mechanical without considering earlier closure and settlement – Discharge warranted [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Order of XI Metropolitan Magistrate dated 22.11.2024 dismissing discharge petition set aside – Petitioners discharged in C.C. No. 1163 of 2023 – Criminal revision allowed – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 14].

Domestic Violence Act - Limitation – Application under Section 12 DV Act – Not Barred by Limitation – Application Maintainable - Petitioner sought quashing of complaint filed under Section 12 DV Act on the ground that the incident of domestic violence dated back to July 2019 and complaint was filed in February 2022, allegedly beyond the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC – Held: Section 468 CrPC applies only to penal proceedings under Section 31 of DV Act and not to civil reliefs under Section 12 – Complaint is not time-barred and is maintainable [Paras 6, 14-15, 17].

Nature of Proceedings under DV Act – Civil in Nature – Proceedings under Section 12 Distinguished from Criminal Complaints - Court reiterated that application under Section 12 of DV Act is civil in nature and not a "complaint" under Section 2(d) of CrPC – Cognizance procedures under Section 190 and Chapter XV CrPC do not apply to Section 12 applications – Section 28 allows the court to lay its own procedure for such applications [Paras 10-12].

Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Exercise of Inherent Powers – Interference Warranted Only in Exceptional Cases - Though petition under Section 482 CrPC is maintainable, court held that such power should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of gross injustice – No illegality or abuse of process found in the present complaint to warrant quashing [Paras 16, 18].

Relief – Petition Dismissed – Complaint under Section 12 and Application under Section 23 of DV Act to Proceed - Since limitation bar under Section 468 CrPC does not apply and allegations raised triable issues under the DV Act, the petition was dismissed as misconceived and devoid of merit [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Revision – Service of Notice on Foreign Entity – Section 105 CrPC – Not Mandatory – UBS Switzerland AG, de facto complainant in a criminal case involving misappropriation of pledged goods worth Rs. 55 crores, challenged the order dispensing with notice under Section 105 CrPC on ground of international reciprocity – Held: Section 105 CrPC deals with processes relating to search, seizure, warrants, and attachment in cases with extraterritorial elements – It does not mandate service of notice to an opposite party/complainant in criminal revision – No statutory requirement exists to serve foreign parties through diplomatic channels in such proceedings – Failure to invoke Section 105 CrPC does not vitiate revision proceedings [Paras 10–13, 16].

Fair Hearing – Procedural Requirement – Mere Representation by Counsel Not Equivalent to Valid Service – Court held that appearance of complainant’s counsel before trial court cannot substitute independent service of notice – Representation does not waive statutory service requirements – However, in this case, notice was sent by registered post to petitioner’s correct address, ensuring no prejudice – Hence, proceedings remain valid [Paras 13–15].

Judicial Review – Correctness of Reasoning vs. Conclusion – While Additional Sessions Judge’s reasoning (dispensing with service solely due to past representation by counsel) was unsustainable, his ultimate conclusion refusing issuance of notice under Section 105 CrPC was correct – High Court substituted proper reasoning but upheld conclusion [Paras 14, 17].

Decision – Criminal revision dismissed – Order of Additional Sessions Judge upheld though on different reasoning – No merit in petitioner’s challenge [Paras 18–19].

Family Law - Maintenance – Widow’s Right – Estate of Father-in-Law – Enforceable Right – The Appellant, a widowed daughter-in-law, claimed maintenance from the estate of her predeceased father-in-law – The Family Court dismissed the petition as non-maintainable under Section 22 of HAMA – Held: Under Sections 19(1), 21(vii), 22(2), and 28 of HAMA, a widowed daughter-in-law has a statutory right to claim maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate in absence of other means – Appeal allowed; order of Family Court set aside [Paras 1-3, 6-10].

Statutory Interpretation – HAMA is a Welfare Legislation – Liberal and Purposeful Construction – The Court emphasized that HAMA must be interpreted in a manner advancing social protection to vulnerable dependants like widowed daughters-in-law – The right of maintenance survives as an enforceable claim against the estate and transferees under Section 28 – Held: Narrow interpretation would defeat the object and intent of the statute [Paras 8, 11-12].

Definition of Dependant – Section 21(vii) of HAMA – Applicability – The Court held that the term “dependant” under Section 21(vii) includes the widow of a son, entitled to maintenance from the estate of her father-in-law, provided she has no other source of maintenance – Held: Her claim survives against legal heirs who inherited the estate [Paras 6-7, 10].

Family Court Judgment – Error of Law – Incorrect Interpretation of Section 22 – The Family Court wrongly held the claim to be barred under Section 22 – The High Court clarified that Section 22 enables enforcement of maintenance claims against heirs who inherited estate from the deceased, and does not bar claims under Section 19 against the estate – Held: Impugned judgment set aside [Paras 5, 10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Family Court Directed to Expedite Disposal – The High Court remanded the matter for further proceedings and assessment of maintenance quantum – Held: Appeal disposed of with directions for early disposal [Paras 14-16].

Adverse Possession – Elements and Burden of Proof – Plaintiff claimed ownership of agricultural land through adverse possession spanning over 35 years – First Appellate Court held that the possession was open, continuous and hostile and thus ripened into ownership – High Court held that initial possession was recorded as mortgagee and not hostile – Rejected mortgage mutation does not automatically convert permissive possession into adverse – No pleading or proof of hostile assertion of title from a specific date – Plaintiff consistently claimed ancestral ownership and never acknowledged original owners – Held: Plea of adverse possession not proved in absence of specific pleading, denial of title, and hostile assertion [Paras 15-20]

Revenue Records – Legal Character of Possession – Plaintiff recorded as mortgagee in revenue entries – Mutation based on oral mortgage was rejected – Plaintiff and defendants both denied existence of any mortgage – No rent paid or relationship of tenancy established – High Court held that entries and rejection of mutation merely showed permissive possession, not adverse – Plaintiff failed to prove conversion to adverse possession with knowledge of real owners [Paras 16-18]

Second Appeal – Scope – Second appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act do not require framing of substantial question of law unlike under Section 100 CPC – However, findings of appellate court can be interfered with if based on misapplication of legal principles – High Court found that first appellate court had misapplied law on adverse possession and ignored material deficiencies in pleadings and proof [Para 14]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 05.05.1990 passed by the first Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree dated 05.08.1989 passed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Gurgaon restored [Paras 21-22]