Criminal Law – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Fratricide – Sudden Quarrel – Single Stab Injury – Accused convicted under Sections 324 and 302 IPC by Sessions Court – Evidence showed cordial relationship between accused and deceased brothers – Incident arose out of trivial dispute over tying a goat – Held: No premeditation or prior animosity – Act committed in heat of passion – Conviction under Section 302 IPC unsustainable – Altered to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 23–31].

Evidence Act – Related Witnesses – Credibility – Wife (PW1) and Minor Son (PW4) of Deceased as Eyewitnesses – Defence contended they were interested witnesses – Court held that close relatives are natural witnesses – Their evidence consistent, cogent and corroborated by medical and surrounding evidence – Mere relationship not a ground for rejection – Conviction can be based on such testimony if reliable [Paras 16–22].

Medical Jurisprudence – Proof of Cause of Death – Stab Injury to Chest Penetrating Heart – Doctor did not expressly state injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – Held: Not fatal to prosecution case – Court can independently infer from nature, location and severity of injury – Death conclusively homicidal [Paras 10–15].

Criminal Law – Section 300 IPC – Applicability of Exceptions – Heat of Passion – No Intention to Cause Death – Knowledge Attributable – Accused inflicted single knife blow during sudden quarrel – Held: Case falls under Section 299 IPC, third limb – Conviction appropriate under Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 25–31].

Sentencing – Alteration of Conviction – Sentence of Life Imprisonment Set Aside – Accused sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence under Section 324 IPC confirmed – Sentences to run concurrently – Compensation to victim’s wife under Section 357(1) CrPC – Recommendation under Section 357-A CrPC upheld [Paras 31–Final Order].

Decision: Criminal Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC confirmed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside and altered to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine imposed – Compensation directed to be paid to the wife of the deceased – Remaining directions of the Sessions Court affirmed.

Writ Jurisdiction – Locus Standi – Shareholders of Allottee Company – Petitioners claiming inchoate rights based on alleged 50% shareholding sought to challenge actions of KIADB permitting sub-lease – Held: Shareholders have no proprietary right over assets of the company – No enforceable legal right shown – Petitioners not “persons aggrieved” for invoking Article 226 [Paras 9, 15–16].

Public Law Remedy – Private Commercial Dispute – Petitioners’ grievance stemmed from investment and shareholding dispute of 2004 pending before Commercial Court – Attempt to cloak private dispute as public law issue impermissible – Extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to settle personal scores or gain leverage in commercial negotiations [Paras 5, 11, 21, 32].

KIAD Act – Sub-Lease Permission – Sections 34 and 34-B – KIADB granted permission to sub-lease 25 acres pursuant to enquiry ordered by Division Bench – Sub-lease permitted under Clause 11(a) of Lease-cum-Sale Agreement – Petitioners having no statutory role in KIADB’s decision-making cannot assail such permission [Paras 3.3, 6, 13].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Nature of Coordinate Bench Decisions – Earlier Single Bench view on locus diluted by Division Bench – Subsequent Coordinate Bench categorically held petitioners lack locus – Held: Subsequent Bench bound by coordinate Bench judgment unless stayed or set aside – Entertaining petitions would violate settled principles of judicial discipline [Paras 13–14].

Precedent – Ratio Decidendi – Coordinate Bench Authority – Reliance placed on Dr. Shah Faesal v. Union of India – Coordinate Bench decisions binding on Benches of equal strength – Remedy, if any, lies before Division Bench and not by re-agitating identical issues before Single Judge [Paras 14–15].

Writ of Certiorari / Mandamus – Threshold Bar – Absence of Locus – Once petitioners fail on locus, Court cannot examine merits of impugned permission or sub-lease deed – Held: Petitions liable to be rejected at threshold [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Writ Petition Nos. 25744 of 2025 and 25894 of 2025 dismissed – Petitioners held to have no locus standi to challenge permission granted by KIADB or sub-lease executed between respondents – All interim orders vacated.

Trade Mark Law – Section 124 Trade Marks Act – Mandatory Stay of Infringement Suit – Defendants sought stay of suit and time to initiate rectification proceedings challenging validity of plaintiff’s registered trade mark – Trial Court framed additional issue on validity but refused stay – Held: Once plea of invalidity of registered trade mark is found prima facie tenable, Trial Court is mandatorily required to adjourn proceedings and grant time to approach Registrar/High Court for rectification – Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide validity of registered trade mark – Failure to stay proceedings contrary to statutory mandate [Paras 16–19].

Jurisdiction – Validity of Registered Trade Mark – Exclusive Domain of Registrar/High Court – Trial Court denuded of jurisdiction to independently examine validity of registered trade mark once rectification is sought – Framing of issue on validity does not confer jurisdiction on Civil Court – Final decision in rectification proceedings binding on Civil Court under Section 124(4) – Reliance placed on Patel Field Marshal Agencies v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. and Amrish Aggarwal v. Venus Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. [Paras 16.1, 17–18].

Infringement vs. Passing Off – Distinct Causes of Action – Section 124 applies only to suits for infringement of registered trade mark – Does not apply to common law remedy of passing off – Passing off action based on use and goodwill of unregistered or prior-used mark – Issue answered that Section 124 does not mandate stay of passing off claim [Paras 19–20].

Composite Suit – Joinder and Severability of Causes of Action – Suit combining infringement and passing off is maintainable – Causes of action distinct and severable – Court empowered under Order II Rule 6 CPC to order separate trials where joinder causes delay or inconvenience – Reliance on Full Bench decision in Carlsberg Breweries A/S v. Som Distilleries & Breweries Ltd. [Paras 21–24, 24.1].

Procedure – Splitting of Composite Suit – Directions Issued – Considering prolonged delay of nearly six years at pre-trial stage, Court directed severance of causes of action – Infringement claim stayed for three months to enable defendants to initiate rectification proceedings – Passing off claim directed to be tried separately as an independent suit – Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously on passing off claim [Paras 25–27].

Decision: Revision petition partly allowed – Impugned order modified – Defendants granted three months to initiate rectification proceedings – Suit for infringement stayed for said period – Suit for passing off directed to be tried separately – Revision disposed of.

Service Law – Assistant Teacher – Appointment Obtained by Fraud – Cancellation After 15 Years of Service – Petitioner appointed as Assistant Teacher in 2010 and continued in service for nearly 15 years – Appointment cancelled by District Basic Education Officer on verification of records and STF enquiry finding educational and domicile certificates forged and belonging to another person – Held: Length of service does not sanctify an appointment obtained by fraud – Fraud vitiates everything [Paras 2–5].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Fraudulent Appointment – Plea of violation of principles of natural justice rejected – Where appointment is secured on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, no detailed enquiry or opportunity of hearing is required – Beneficiary of fraud cannot invoke protections of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 [Paras 5, 7].

Judicial Review – Alternative Remedy – Writ Maintainability – Though alternative remedy of appeal was available, writ petition not pressed on that ground at final stage – Court held that availability of alternative remedy is not a bar where plea of denial of opportunity of hearing is raised – Nevertheless, on merits, no interference warranted [Paras 6–7].

Precedents – Fraudulent Appointments – Consistent View of High Court – Reliance placed on earlier decisions holding that appointments obtained by fraud are void ab initio and can be cancelled without departmental enquiry – Fraud unravels all acts and confers no enforceable right [Para 5].

Public Employment – Education System – Systemic Fraud – Court expressed serious concern over large-scale appointments of Assistant Teachers on forged certificates with collusion or connivance of officials – Such illegal appointments undermine purity of education system and prejudice students’ interest, which is paramount [Paras 8–9].

Directions – State-wide Scrutiny – Mandamus Issued – Principal Secretary, Basic Education directed to conduct comprehensive and time-bound scrutiny of appointments of Assistant Teachers across the State – Action to include cancellation of fraudulent appointments, recovery of salary wherever permissible, and disciplinary/penal action against erring officials – Exercise to be completed preferably within six months [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Cancellation order upheld – Mandatory directions issued to State authorities for State-wide verification and action against fraudulent appointments – Registrar (Compliance) directed to communicate order for immediate compliance [Paras 7, 10–12].

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Bail – Section 43D(5) – Statutory Embargo – Appeal under Section 21(4) NIA Act against rejection of bail – Accused alleged to be member of proscribed terrorist organisation Islamic State – Involvement in radicalisation, conspiracy, reconnaissance, arson and terror funding through cryptocurrency – Held: When Court finds reasonable grounds for believing that accusations are prima facie true, statutory bar under Section 43D(5) squarely applies – Bail cannot be granted [Paras 9–11].

Terrorist Activities – Prima Facie Case – Evidentiary Material at Bail Stage – Material on record including voluntary statement, seizure of mobile phone, digital evidence, FSL report and cryptocurrency transactions considered – Images of sensitive locations, arson-related material and news clippings recovered – Evidence showing receipt and transfer of terror funds through crypto wallets – Held: Cumulative material establishes prima facie involvement in terrorist activities and conspiracy – Trial Court justified in rejecting bail [Paras 3–5, 9–11].

Criminal Conspiracy and Support to Terrorist Organisation – Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 & 40 UAPA – Appellant alleged to have facilitated terror funding, shared crypto wallet details, converted funds into cash and assisted co-accused – Participation in reconnaissance and arson held to be acts furthering objectives of terrorist organisation – Contentions that ingredients of Section 15 UAPA not made out rejected – Prima facie satisfaction sufficient at bail stage [Paras 6, 9–11].

Bail Jurisdiction – Scope of Appellate Interference – Appellate Court to examine whether Trial Court’s view is perverse or ignores material on record – Trial Court discussed evidence in detail and recorded reasons for prima facie satisfaction – No ground made out for interference with bail rejection order [Paras 11–13].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents – Arrest and Procedural Safeguards – Reliance placed on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement – Held: Observations regarding procedural safeguards do not dilute statutory bar under Section 43D(5) UAPA in presence of prima facie material – Bail rightly declined [Para 12].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Order dated 20.05.2025 rejecting bail upheld – Appellant not entitled to enlargement on bail.

Criminal Law – Recall of Witness – Section 311 Cr.P.C. / Section 348 BNSS – Petitioners sought recall of PW-1 for further cross-examination – Trial court dismissed application holding no sufficient cause for earlier non-cross-examination – PW-1’s testimony earlier closed with remark “Nil. Opportunity given” when accused were unrepresented – Held: Order resulted in gross injustice warranting interference under inherent jurisdiction [Paras 1, 5–6].

Criminal Procedure – Interlocutory Orders – Bar of Revision – Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. / Section 438(2) BNSS – Dismissal of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. ordinarily interlocutory and revision barred – Held: Bar on revision does not oust inherent powers where interlocutory order results in gross injustice – High Court duty-bound to invoke inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice [Para 4].

Fair Trial – Right to Legal Representation – Accused compelled to cross-examine prosecution witness in absence of counsel – Accused being lay persons unable to conduct effective cross-examination – Held: Denial of legal assistance strikes at the core of fair trial and vitiates trial proceedings – In the name of expeditious trial, fairness cannot be sacrificed [Paras 5, 7–8].

Criminal Courts – Duty of Trial Court – Absence of Defence Counsel – Proper Course – Held: Where accused are unrepresented, trial court should appoint amicus curiae or seek legal aid counsel instead of compelling accused to cross-examine – Trial court may also exercise power to put questions to witness to reach truth – Emphasis on purity and fairness of trial [Paras 6, 8].

Inherent Powers – Ends of Justice – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court set aside impugned order refusing recall of witness – Trial court directed to grant fresh opportunity to accused through counsel to cross-examine PW-1 – Directions issued for systemic compliance and circulation among criminal courts to avoid recurrence [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 28.08.2024 set aside – Trial court directed to permit further cross-examination of PW-1 through counsel – Matter remitted for continuation of trial in accordance with law [Paras 9–10].

Writ of Mandamus – Requirement of Legal Right – Petitioners sought direction not to close alleged 30-feet road connecting colonies – Held, issuance of mandamus requires establishment of a judicially enforceable legal right and corresponding public duty – Petitioners failed to demonstrate existence of road through cogent material – Mere assertion insufficient – No mandamus can be issued in absence of proof of right [Paras 11-14, 20, 29].

Pleadings in Writ Proceedings – Burden of Proof – In writ jurisdiction, not only facts but supporting evidence must be pleaded and annexed – Petitioners relied only on photographs which did not establish existence of road – No village map or revenue record produced – No rejoinder filed to counter affidavit – Petitioners failed to discharge burden [Paras 15-19].

Suppression of Material Facts – Clean Hands Doctrine – Court found inconsistencies in pleadings and lack of supporting material – Petitioners approached Court without full and candid disclosure – Applying doctrine of suppressio veri, expressio falsi, discretionary relief declined [Paras 20-23].

Public Trust Doctrine – Protection of Water Bodies – Subject land classified as Vagu Poramboke reserved for natural water flow and flood protection – Banks/bunds of water bodies integral part of natural resource – State holds such resources in trust for public and future generations – Encroachments or diversion impermissible – Flood protection works cannot be stalled without proof of lawful right [Paras 24-28].

Vakalatnama – Importance of Attestation – Three petitioners initially denied signing vakalat – Court examined procedural safeguards under Appellate Side Rules and Order III Rule 4 CPC – Attestation not mere formality but mandatory safeguard to prevent impersonation and unauthorised litigation – Registry directed to verify attestation scrupulously – Advocates cautioned to mention name and Bar Council enrolment number while attesting [Paras 31-39, 42].

Incidental Enquiry – Denial of Signature – Registrar (Judicial) conducted enquiry – Report indicated petitioners signed document though alleged ignorance of contents – Court declined to delve deeper but issued caution to Bar and Registry [Paras 36-38].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petitioners failed to prove existence of alleged road or establish enforceable legal right – No costs – Registry directed to ensure proper scrutiny of vakalatnamas – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Public Employment – Recruitment by Public Service Commission – Mandatory Timelines – Submission of Documents – Cut-off Date – Advertisement No. 17/2022 for Assistant Professor (Botany) – Petitioner provisionally selected in written examination but failed to submit verification documents within stipulated time and even within extended periods granted with late fees – Subsequent representation citing illness rejected – Held: Conditions of advertisement and Appendix-1 regarding timelines are mandatory and binding – Non-compliance results in automatic cancellation of candidature – Commission becomes functus officio after expiry of final cut-off date – No relaxation permissible in absence of enabling provision [Paras 11–16, 22–24].

Service Law – Vigilance Expected from Candidates – Obligation to Monitor Official Website – Advertisement clauses casting duty on candidates to regularly check Commission’s website for updates – Disclaimer of responsibility for individual communication – Held: Responsibility to remain vigilant lies solely on candidate – Plea of ignorance or non-checking of website cannot be accepted [Paras 11–13, 22].

Service Law – Relaxation of Conditions – Medical Grounds – Equitable Considerations – Petitioner pleaded illness (Mixed Connective Tissue Disease) as reason for delay – No contemporaneous medical proof produced for relevant period – Advertisement did not provide for relaxation on medical or personal grounds – Held: In absence of statutory or advertised power of relaxation, no equity or sympathy can override mandatory recruitment conditions – Grant of individual relaxation would violate Articles 14 and 16 [Paras 17–18, 23–24].

Service Law – Interim Orders – Participation in Selection Process – No Vested Right – Petitioner permitted to appear in interview pursuant to interim order with result kept in sealed cover – Held: Participation under interim protection does not confer any vested or enforceable right – Candidate participates at own risk – On dismissal of petition, interim order stands merged with final decision [Paras 19, 25].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Recruitment Matters – Concluded Selection Process – Interference at Belated Stage – Selection process finalized and recommendations already forwarded to State – Held: Court should not unsettle a concluded selection process in absence of illegality or arbitrariness – Interference would prejudice rights of duly selected candidates and undermine certainty in public recruitment [Paras 21, 24].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No direction to accept documents beyond cut-off date – Interim order dated 16/12/2024 stands vacated – No relief granted to petitioner.

Civil Writ - Recruitment Examination – Alleged Paper Leak and Mass Copying – Systemic Malaise – Petitioners sought quashing of entire recruitment process alleging circulation of OMR sheets on social media, identical wrong answers, geographical concentration of toppers and collusion – Held: Mere suspicion, conjecture or post-result dissatisfaction is insufficient to vitiate a recruitment process – Heavy onus lies on petitioners to establish systemic fraud going to the root of the selection [Paras 1, 12, 15].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Process – Limits of Interference – Court reiterated that interference is warranted only when sanctity of examination is compromised at a systemic level rendering segregation of tainted and untainted candidates impossible – Where allegations rest on disputed questions of fact and are examined by a fact-finding inquiry, courts should exercise restraint [Paras 10, 12–13].

Inquiry by Retired High Court Judge – Evidentiary Value – Respondents placed sealed inquiry report prepared by a retired Judge of the High Court – Inquiry exhaustively examined allegations relating to regional concentration, prior poor performance, age of candidates, familial relationships and identical wrong answers – Forensic examination of OMR sheets ruled out common authorship and impersonation – Inquiry report upheld fairness and transparency of examination – Held: Such report deserves due deference in absence of perversity or mala fides [Paras 2, 11, 16].

Objective-Type Examination – Similar Wrong Answers – Evidentiary Appreciation – Allegation that top candidates chose identical incorrect answers – Held: Similarity in wrong answers can arise from common preparation material, elimination techniques and exam stress – In absence of evidence of tampering, communication devices or access to answer keys, such similarity does not establish malpractice [Paras 11(e), 16].

Geographical Concentration of Successful Candidates – Effect – High number of toppers from particular districts alleged to indicate cheating nexus – Inquiry found candidates appeared at different centres with no roll-number or seating proximity – Held: Regional concentration by itself cannot give rise to presumption of collusion or unfair means [Paras 11(a), 16].

Cancellation of Examination – Doctrine of Proportionality – Court relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence to hold that cancellation of an examination is an extreme measure – Where no systemic breach is demonstrated and it is possible to segregate tainted candidates, cancellation would be disproportionate – Facts of Tanvi Sarwal and Sachin Kumar distinguished as involving proven large-scale and organized malpractice [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Recruitment process under Advertisement No. 6 of 2023 upheld – Interim order vacated – Inquiry report accepted and returned – No direction for fresh examination or criminal investigation warranted [Paras 18–21].