Motor Vehicles Act – Appeal by Insurance Company – Challenge to award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Grounds of invalid driving licence and non-coverage of deceased labourer under insurance policy – Tribunal after appreciation of evidence held driver possessed valid driving licence – Document relied upon by insurer found doubtful – Photocopy of licence produced by driver accepted – No perversity in finding of Tribunal – Held: Finding regarding valid driving licence justified and does not call for interference [Paras 7–8].

Motor Accident Claim – Death of Labourer Travelling in Tractor-Trolley – Deceased engaged as labourer for unloading potato sacks – Vehicle insured for agricultural purposes – Accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of tractor – Tribunal rightly held negligence proved – Owner’s statement not sufficient to dislodge consistent evidence on record – Finding of rash and negligent driving upheld [Paras 2–3, 17].

Insurance Law – Liability of Insurer – Coverage of Employee/Labourer – Additional premium paid towards legal liability of employee/driver – Deceased travelling in connection with goods transported and not as gratuitous passenger – Labourer held to be employee of owner – Policy not breached as vehicle used for insured agricultural purpose – Insurer liable to indemnify owner – Held: Insurance Company rightly saddled with liability to pay compensation [Paras 9–15.2].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 147 – Third Party Risk – Employee as Third Party – Mere status as third party not sufficient – Liability arises only if covered under statute or terms of policy – In present case, policy extended coverage by charging additional premium – Tribunal correctly applied law – Full Bench decision in Bhav Singh v. Savirani distinguished and applied [Paras 11–15].

Precedent – Distinction – Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan – Tractor in that case used for non-agricultural purpose in breach of policy – Present case involved agricultural use as insured – Ratio not applicable – Appeal devoid of merit [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Award dated 20.10.2011 affirmed – Insurance Company liable to satisfy compensation of Rs.7,75,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum.

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].

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].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Dowry Death – Interference by Appellate Court – State challenged acquittal of accused under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC – Principles governing appeal against acquittal reiterated – Unless findings are perverse or wholly unreasonable, interference not warranted – Trial court’s view found plausible and supported by evidence – Acquittal upheld [Paras 28–29].

Dowry Death – Section 304-B IPC – Essential Ingredients – Proof of “Soon Before Death” Cruelty – Death of married woman by poisoning within seven years of marriage established – However, prosecution failed to prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment “soon before her death” in connection with demand for dowry – Mere unnatural death insufficient to attract Section 304-B IPC [Paras 20, 23–28].

Presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act – Preconditions – Presumption arises only when prosecution proves cruelty or harassment for dowry demand soon before death – Burden on prosecution to establish live and proximate link between alleged dowry demand and death – In absence of reliable evidence of such nexus, statutory presumption not attracted [Paras 24–26, 28].

Evidence – Interested Witnesses – Improvements and Contradictions – Prosecution relied mainly on parents and relatives of deceased – FIR did not disclose alleged settlement of dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- or payment of Rs.1,00,000/- – Material improvements and inconsistencies between FIR and oral testimony – No independent witness examined to prove dowry demand or cruelty – Trial court justified in discarding prosecution version [Paras 19, 23, 28].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Poisoning – Nature of Death – Medical and CA evidence established death due to organochloro insecticide (Indosulfan) poisoning – However, no evidence that accused administered poison – Charge under Section 302 IPC not framed – Suicide by poisoning falls within “death otherwise than normal circumstances” but does not by itself establish dowry death [Paras 21–22].

Dowry Demand – Demand for Money for Employment – Distinction – Evidence indicated alleged demand of Rs.50,000/- for securing job for husband – Such demand not conclusively proved as dowry demand within meaning of Dowry Prohibition Act – Prosecution failed to establish that alleged demand was part of marriage consideration [Paras 23, 28].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order dated 10.01.2003 acquitting accused of offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 IPC affirmed – Record and proceedings to be remitted to trial court [Paras 28–29].

Public Servant – Quasi-Judicial Functions – Criminal Prosecution – Protection under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Executive Officer of Municipal Corporation passed an order staying mutation proceedings pending decision of civil title suit – Allegation of collusion and conspiracy in passing stay order – Held: Passing of stay order was in discharge of quasi-judicial functions and squarely protected under Sections 2 and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Criminal prosecution on such basis amounts to abuse of process [Paras 20–27, 30–31].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – FIR and charge-sheet arose solely from judicial/quasi-judicial order passed by petitioner – No specific allegation of extraneous consideration, corruption or acts beyond jurisdiction – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings would be malafide and oppressive – FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed [Paras 27, 31, 33–34].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Non-Application of Mind – Impugned sanction order granting approval to prosecute petitioner found cryptic and non-speaking – Sanctioning authority failed to consider statutory protection available to petitioner under Judges (Protection) Act – Held: Sanction order invalid and unsustainable in law – Consequential proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 28–29, 32].

Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Scope – Meaning of “Judge” – Revenue / Municipal Officers – Executive Officer empowered to pass definitive orders in mutation proceedings falls within wide definition of “Judge” under Section 2 of the Act – Protection extends to acts done or purported to be done in discharge of official or judicial duty – Remedy against erroneous order lies in appeal and not criminal prosecution [Paras 21–25, 30].

Mutation Proceedings – Civil Dispute – Criminal Colour – Dispute essentially related to title and mutation of property already subject matter of civil suit – Mutation effected years prior to petitioner’s posting – Held: Criminal law cannot be invoked to settle property disputes or challenge administrative orders passed in good faith [Paras 12, 20–21, 31].

Sanction – Safeguard to Public Servants – Object of Law – Sanction is not an idle formality – Must reflect independent application of mind and consideration of material – Mechanical sanction vitiates entire prosecution – Reliance placed on Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar and Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta [Paras 29–32].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Application allowed – FIR in Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 238 of 2014, charge-sheet and sanction order dated 28.12.2020 quashed qua the petitioner – All consequential proceedings set aside [Paras 33–34].

Real Estate Law – RERA – Delay in Possession – Statutory Interest – Mandatory Obligation – Allottee did not withdraw from project despite delay – Proviso to Section 18(1) of RERA Act mandates that promoter shall pay interest for every month of delay till handing over possession – Obligation is automatic and not contingent upon demand by allottee – Promoter liable to pay interest from committed date of possession till actual physical possession [Paras 22–25].

Private Settlement – Waiver of Statutory Rights – Invalidity – Builder relied upon private settlement stating no delay and waiver of claims – Held that private contract or settlement cannot override statutory rights and obligations created under RERA Act – Any agreement seeking to defeat or circumvent proviso to Section 18(1) is void ab initio – Settlement contrary to statute unenforceable [Paras 31–34, 46–47].

One-Sided / Dotted-Line Agreements – Duress – Public Policy – Cyclostyled settlement drafted by promoter with allottee required to sign on dotted line – “Take it or leave it” situation for allottee who had invested life savings – Such agreements ordinarily executed under compulsion and economic duress – Held to be unfair, one-sided and opposed to public policy – Cannot bind allottee [Paras 26, 29–30, 43–45].

Indian Contract Act – Section 23 – Agreements Defeating Law – Agreement whose object defeats provisions of law is unlawful – Settlement aimed at waiving statutory compensation under RERA defeats legislative mandate – Such agreement void under Section 23 of Contract Act, 1872 [Paras 37–39].

RERA – Object and Purpose – Consumer Protection – RERA Act enacted to ensure accountability, transparency and consumer protection – Rights under Sections 18 and 19 are absolute and unqualified – Promoter cannot contract out of statutory liability by private settlement – Statute prevails over contract [Paras 20, 33–36].

Proceedings under Chapter VIII – Penal Consequences – Failure of promoter to discharge mandatory obligation to pay interest exposes promoter to proceedings under Chapter VIII of RERA Act – Direction of Tribunal to initiate proceedings upheld [Paras 25, 40].

Appellate Interference – Scope under Section 58 RERA – Tribunal correctly appreciated facts and law – No illegality or perversity found – No substantial question warranting interference – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 48–50].

Decision: RERA Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order dated 01.04.2025 passed by U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal affirmed – Allottee entitled to interest at MCLR + 1% for delay – Costs upheld.

Criminal Law – Murder and Robbery – Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence – Appeal against conviction under Sections 302/34 and 394 IPC – Trial court convicted appellant relying on alleged recovery of weapon and money – One co-accused died during pendency of appeal resulting in abatement against him – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1–2, 82–84].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Requirement of Completeness – Law reiterated that circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with guilt of accused – Any missing link entitles accused to benefit of doubt – Held: Chain not complete as recovery of weapon, money and ornaments not proved – Conviction set aside [Paras 66–74].

Recovery of Weapon – Seizure Witnesses Turning Hostile – Knife allegedly recovered pursuant to disclosure – Seizure witnesses (P.W.6 & P.W.7) did not support prosecution and stated signatures obtained at police station – Recovery from place pointed out by accused not proved – Held: Alleged recovery unreliable and cannot be basis of conviction [Paras 51–54, 71].

Recovery of Stolen Property – Money allegedly recovered from appellant and co-accused – Seizure witnesses (P.Ws.8, 10, 11 & 12) either hostile or admitted that money was shown at police station – No recovery proved from possession of appellant – Held: Recovery not established beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 55–59, 72].

Hostile Witness – Evidentiary Value – Law summarized that testimony of hostile witness is not to be discarded in toto and may be relied upon to extent corroborated – However, where hostile witnesses do not support recovery and no corroboration exists, prosecution version fails – Applied to facts of case [Paras 59–64].

Medical Evidence – Proof of Homicidal Death – Post-mortem showed incised wound on neck causing hemorrhage and shock – Death homicidal proved – However, medical evidence alone insufficient to link appellant without reliable circumstantial chain [Paras 33–34, 73].

Benefit of Doubt – Criminal Jurisprudence – Where two views possible, view favourable to accused must be adopted – Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Serious doubts arise due to lapses in investigation and unreliable recovery evidence – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 77–81].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 20.09.1997 and sentence dated 22.09.1997 set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 302/34 and 394 IPC – Bail bonds discharged – Trial court records directed to be returned – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 83–86].

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.