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].

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].

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].

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].

Examination Law - Civil Writ - OMR Evaluation – Incorrect Bubbling of Roll Number – DSSSB Exams – Petitions filed against conflicting CAT orders involving identical issues – One candidate’s OMR sheet was evaluated despite incorrect bubbling and later rejected, while the other’s was not evaluated at all – Held: If the OMR was already evaluated and candidate declared successful, later rejection is impermissible; where OMR was not evaluated due to technical default, no relief can be granted [Paras 1-5, 35-36, 42-46, 56].

Procedural Error – Evaluation of OMR Answer Sheets – Candidate Benefited by Prior Evaluation – Relief Granted - In W.P.(C) 1282/2025 (Kusum Gupta), despite bubbling error, candidate’s OMR sheet was evaluated and she was shortlisted – Later rejection deemed arbitrary – Directed that appointment letter be issued subject to eligibility – Entitled to notional benefits without actual pay [Paras 38-43, 56].

Instructions to Candidates – Mandatory Nature – Mistakes in Bubbling Roll Number – Strict Compliance Required - In W.P.(C) 17595/2024 (Niharika Puhan), OMR sheet not evaluated due to incorrect bubbling – Despite writing roll number correctly in digits, non-compliance with explicit instructions proved fatal – Tribunal’s order set aside – Petition dismissed [Paras 31-33, 49-53, 55].

Relief Limited to Litigating Candidate – No Reopening of Entire Result - Court clarified that similar candidates disqualified for identical reasons cannot claim automatic relief unless they have approached Tribunal/Court – Judgment confined to litigating party [Paras 47-48].

Role of Invigilators – Countersigning OMR – Responsibility to Detect Errors – Considered but Not Determinative - Though Court noted invigilator countersigned the OMR sheets, this factor alone does not excuse candidate’s responsibility to fill details accurately [Paras 36-39].

Decision – Petition by DSSSB in W.P.(C) 17595/2024 Allowed – Tribunal’s Order Set Aside – Petition by Kusum Gupta in W.P.(C) 1282/2025 Allowed – DSSSB Directed to Issue Appointment Letter within Eight Weeks – Relief Limited to Present Litigants [Paras 55-57].

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].

Criminal Trial – Conviction for Grievous Hurt – Bite Mark Not Proved – Acquittal Granted – Petitioners were convicted under Sections 341, 323, 326, and 506 IPC for allegedly assaulting the complainant and biting off part of his ear – Trial Court and Sessions Court upheld conviction – Held: Medical evidence showed sharp, clean-cut wounds rather than abrasions typical of human bite – No bite pattern was observed – Medical testimony did not corroborate complainant’s version – Accused acquitted [Paras 17-21, 28].

Witness Credibility – Key Eyewitness Hostile – Corroboration Lacking – Prosecution relied on Amar Dass and Binda Ram as eyewitnesses – Binda Ram turned hostile and denied seeing the incident – Amar Dass’s testimony contradicted official records regarding location of FIR and hospital accompaniment – Held: His presence at the scene doubtful – Conviction cannot be based on uncorroborated testimony of related witness alone [Paras 22-24, 27].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Concurrent Findings Interfered – Errors in Appreciation of Evidence – Though the revisional scope is limited, the Court found perverse appreciation of evidence – Medical and ocular evidence failed to align – Non-examination of Investigating Officer and lack of forensic proof further weakened prosecution – Held: Findings of lower courts were unsustainable – Revision allowed [Paras 12-16, 29-33].

*Decision – Revision Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Accused Acquitted – The High Court found the prosecution's case to suffer from material inconsistencies between medical and ocular evidence, absence of forensic confirmation, and unreliable witness testimony – Held: Courts below erred in convicting the accused – Their findings were perverse and unsupported by the record – Accused Shammi Kapoor and Rajinder Kumar acquitted of all charges [Paras 32-34].

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]

Civil Appeal – Dispute Over Sale Agreement – Presumption under Section 118 of NI Act Rebutted – Appeal Allowed - Plaintiff alleged payment of ₹52,40,120/- under an oral agreement for return of sale consideration, supported by three cheques allegedly issued as acknowledgment – Trial court presumed consideration under Section 118 of the NI Act and decreed suit – Held: Plaintiff's version of payment lacked credibility, cheques not issued in discharge of liability, and no independent proof of payments made – Presumption rebutted – Suit dismissed [Paras 9-21].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Burden of Proof – Section 118(a) – Presumption Not Available Where Consideration Disproved - Plaintiff pleaded a specific form of consideration that was not reflected in the cheques and failed to prove it – Once plaintiff alleges a consideration different from that mentioned in the instrument, presumption under Section 118(a) ceases to apply – Citing K.P.O. Moideenkutty Hajee v. Pappu Manjooran – Held: Plaintiff must prove liability independent of presumption – Failed to discharge burden [Paras 19-21].

Appellate Review – Evaluation of Evidence – Improbable Transactions and Witness Unreliable – Trial Court Judgment Set Aside - Evidence including testimony of a daily-wage employee was unreliable – No source of funds shown by plaintiff – Failure to explain why seller would issue cheques for amounts received – Trial court findings held perverse – Decree set aside and suit dismissed [Paras 17-22].