Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque – Legal Presumption under NI Act – Conviction Upheld - Accused admitted issuance of cheque but claimed it was issued in connection with a proposed joint business – Trial Court and Appellate Court held that presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act was not rebutted – Accused failed to lead any defence evidence despite ample opportunity – Mere denial in Section 313 CrPC statement held insufficient – Held: Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act upheld [Paras 6, 26–28, 36–37].

Additional Evidence – Application under Section 311 CrPC Rejected – No Prejudice Proved - Accused sought to recall witnesses during appeal, but application wrongly filed under Section 311 instead of Section 391 CrPC – Appellate Court held sufficient opportunities were earlier granted – Supreme Court precedents cited holding that additional evidence at appellate stage must meet strict criteria – Held: Dismissal of application valid and proper [Paras 17–22, 25].

Deemed Service of Notice – Notice Returned Unclaimed – Presumption of Service Applies - Accused challenged validity of notice – Court held that notice sent to correct address and returned unclaimed was deemed served under Section 27 of General Clauses Act and Section 114 of Evidence Act – Held: Notice requirement under Section 138 NI Act satisfied [Paras 39–42].

Quantum of Sentence and Compensation – Not Excessive – Two Months’ Simple Imprisonment with ₹8,00,000 Compensation Justified - Court considered delay in proceedings and complainant’s litigation costs – Compensation exceeds cheque amount but aligns with principles laid down in Kalamani Tex and R. Vijayan – Held: Sentence proportionate and not excessive [Paras 45–48].
 

Taxation Law – VAT - Tax Classification – Mobile Chargers as Accessories – Differential VAT Rate Justified – Tribunal erred in treating mobile chargers bundled with phones as part of the phone and applying 5% VAT – Held: Mobile chargers are not composite parts of phones but accessories – As per Supreme Court's ruling in State of Punjab vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., they are independently marketable and not essential to operate a phone – VAT at 13.75% correctly applied by Assessing Authority [Paras 3-5, 13-19, 39].

Precedent – Binding Nature of Nokia India Case – Applicability to HP VAT Act – Provisions of the Himachal Pradesh VAT Act being pari materia with Punjab VAT Act – Tribunal failed to correctly apply the law laid down by the Supreme Court – Decisions of Allahabad and Karnataka High Courts distinguished due to different statutory provisions under UP VAT and Karnataka VAT [Paras 8-22, 25-28, 39].

Essential Character and Composite Goods Test – Rule 3(b) Inapplicable – Court rejected reliance on Rule 3(b) of the General Rules for Interpretation under Customs Tariff Act – Since phones and chargers have distinct HSN codes, they are to be taxed separately – Composite packaging does not alter legal classification [Paras 30-33].

Office Memorandum Dated 30.11.2015 – No Statutory Force – Clarification suggesting same rate for bundled accessories not legally binding – Absence of legislative amendment in HP VAT Act makes memo ineffective in altering tax treatment [Para 34-35].

Dominant Nature Test – Not Applicable to Pure Sale of Goods – Dominant nature test relevant in composite contracts involving services – In present case, mobile and charger are distinct goods sold in a single package – Tax to be applied based on individual classification [Paras 36-37].

Decision – Civil Revision Allowed – Tribunal’s order set aside – VAT at 13.75% on mobile chargers upheld – Tribunal misapplied law and failed to appreciate statutory provisions and precedent – Assessment order restored [Para 39].

Civil Law - Child Custody – Paramount Consideration of Welfare – Father's Custody Refused – Despite being acquitted of wife's alleged murder, the father was denied custody of the minor son – Court prioritized the child's welfare, observing emotional trauma and the minor's expressed unwillingness to reside with the father – Reiterated that guardianship rights cannot override welfare of the child [Paras 24-25, 36-43].

Natural Guardian – Not Entitled as of Right – G.W. Act – Welfare Overrides Guardianship – The appellant, though the natural guardian, was denied custody as the court emphasized that natural guardianship does not guarantee custody when contrary to the minor’s interest and well-being [Paras 28-29, 48-50].

Preference of the Minor – Significant Factor – Refusal to Stay with Father – The minor had deposed against the father in a murder case and persistently refused to live with him – Held: Minor’s opinion, being of intelligent age and under trauma, must be given due weight [Paras 40-43, 54-55].

Pending Criminal Appeal – Impact on Custody – Custody Denied Despite Acquittal – The father’s acquittal in a criminal case was not considered conclusive – Pending appeal and child’s testimony in earlier proceedings continued to weigh against granting custody [Paras 25, 34-35, 39].

Decision – Custody to Continue with Maternal Grandparents – Custody rightly continued with the maternal family – Court held that the overall development, education, emotional safety, and well-being of the child was better served with the respondents – Appeal dismissed [Paras 33, 46-47, 52-53].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Cruelty under Section 498-A IPC – Taunts, Abuses and Alleged Assaults – Prima Facie Offence Made Out – Petition Dismissed – Wife alleged repeated physical and mental harassment including beatings, sexual violence, and dowry-related abuse – Court held that these allegations, if proven, could attract Section 498-A IPC and require adjudication in trial – Held: Petition to quash criminal proceedings dismissed [Paras 25-32].

Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Limited Scope – Interference Not Warranted – Allegations Raise Triable Issues – Court reiterated that power to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases – In view of detailed allegations and pending trial, interference under Section 482 CrPC and Article 227 of Constitution was not justified – Held: Petition premature and devoid of merit [Paras 31, 33-36].

Exoneration by Army Inquiry – Not Binding on Criminal Proceedings – Different Standards Apply – Petitioner relied on exoneration by Army authorities on similar allegations – Held: Such inquiry not judicial in nature, not conducted under evidentiary standards required in criminal law – Does not preclude prosecution under IPC and DV Act [Paras 38-41].

Domestic Violence Allegations – Triable Case Exists – Complaint Not an Abuse of Process – Petitioners challenged DV proceedings citing contradictions and lack of medico-legal evidence – Court held that sustained taunts, threats, and control over household resources may constitute domestic violence – Held: Sufficient basis exists to proceed with complaint under DV Act [Paras 27-30].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – No Grounds to Quash FIR or DV Complaint – Court emphasized need to test veracity of allegations at trial and not under pre-trial jurisdiction of High Court – Held: No abuse of process established, both petitions dismissed [Paras 43].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Enforcement of Judicial Orders – Non-Attraction of Section 92(i) AFA – Petitioner sought deduction of maintenance from salary under Air Force Act – Held: Since civil courts had already granted maintenance and respondent was complying, such recovery cannot be enforced under Section 92(i) – Air Force guidelines (AFO 24/2000) bar parallel deductions when civil decree exists – Petitioner advised to pursue enforcement under CrPC, not through writ [Paras 5.5, 6.1–6.2, 5.14].

Marital Status – Entry in Service Records – Writ Not Maintainable – Disputed Facts – Petitioner’s prayer to record her as wife in service book opposed based on talaqnama and subsequent marriage of respondent – Held: Disputed questions of marital status not suitable for adjudication in writ jurisdiction – Remedy lies before competent civil/family court – Writ to alter service records or declare marital status not permissible under Article 226 [Paras 5.13–5.14, 7.1–7.3].

Talaq – Validity and Recognition – Certificate Found Genuine – Respondent produced talaqnama dated 01.09.2009 recorded by Qazi and verified by Air Force – Subsequent marriage to Sahista Parwin solemnized under Special Marriage Act – Held: Authority accepted validity of talaq after verification – No challenge made by petitioner before appropriate forum – Legal recognition of second marriage cannot be disturbed in writ [Paras 4.2–4.4, 5.3–5.4].

Marriage by Notary – Not Recognized in Law – Agreement Executed before Notary Invalid – Petitioner relied on marriage agreement dated 12.12.2008 before Notary – Held: Notaries have no authority to perform or certify marriage/divorce – Reiterated that execution of marriage deed by Notary has no legal sanctity – Such acts declared illegal by multiple High Courts and Ministry of Law circulars – Professional misconduct if done by Notaries [Paras 5.6–5.12].

Relationship in Nature of Marriage – Relief under PWDV Act Valid – Courts below granted maintenance considering domestic relationship akin to marriage – Held: Relationship established through cohabitation and social acknowledgment, even without formal marriage – Protection under PWDV Act justified – Order of maintenance upheld across judicial tiers [Paras 5.1–5.3].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No mandamus can be issued for salary deduction under Air Force Act when judicial maintenance order exists – Petitioner’s status not fit for declaration under writ – Directed to seek relief before appropriate civil court if aggrieved – Name of respondent’s second wife validly recorded based on verified documents and legal marriage [Paras 5.14, 6.2, 7.3].

Criminal Law – Discharge - Medical Negligence – Delay in Filing Complaint – Barred by Limitation – Cognizance Not Justified – Complaint filed four years after patient's death alleging medical negligence – Held: Offence under Section 304-A IPC carries a limitation of three years – No satisfactory explanation offered for delay – Trial Court’s assumption of jurisdiction under Section 473 CrPC flawed – Cognizance beyond limitation not sustainable without judicial justification [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Absence of Prima Facie Case – Discharge Allowed – Charges under Sections 418, 420, 304(A), and 120(B) IPC – Held: No allegations of wrongful gain, inducement, or rash/negligent act by petitioner – No material to indicate criminal intent – Referral to another doctor after diagnostic tests does not amount to offence – Charge-sheet silent on petitioner’s role – Discharge warranted [Paras 7, 11–15].

Standard of Criminal Liability in Medical Negligence – No Recklessness or Gross Negligence Attributed – Citing Dr. Suresh Gupta and Jacob Mathew – Held: Mere adverse outcome in treatment not criminal offence – Criminal liability arises only on gross negligence or recklessness – In present case, no such finding exists – Petitioner may be liable in civil law, but not in criminal [Paras 16–17, 20].

Impact of Consumer Forum Orders – Not Binding on Criminal Court – Held: Proceedings before Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission operate on preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Finding of negligence by forum has no bearing on criminal prosecution – Independent judicial scrutiny required for criminal liability [Paras 18–19].

Discharge Under Section 239 CrPC – Judicial Scrutiny Required – Citing Sanjay Kumar Rai – Held: Trial Court erred in mechanical dismissal of discharge petition – Court is not a post office – Required to evaluate material and assess legal sufficiency of allegations – High Court found no ground to proceed to trial [Para 21].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case allowed – Order of Trial Court dated 01/04/2024 set aside – Petitioner discharged from all offences in C.C. No.1304 of 2014 – Pending miscellaneous applications closed [Para 22].
 

Temple Management – Hereditary Archakship – Civil Court Decrees Binding – Petitioners Entitled to Perform Karaga – Petitioner established his hereditary rights through R.A. No.46/1983 and R.S.A. No.412/1984 – Held: Tahsildar’s repeated orders permitting rival claimant to perform Karaga on rotation basis are contrary to binding court decrees – Petitioners’ right to perform Karaga recognized and affirmed by High Court and upheld by Supreme Court – Orders permitting rotation quashed [Paras 6, 15–20].

Administrative Overreach – Tahsildar Exceeded Jurisdiction – Performance of Rituals Beyond Scope of Revenue Officer – Held: Tahsildar repeatedly disregarded judicial orders and passed whimsical decisions without authority – Right to perform religious rituals, if established, cannot be nullified by administrative expediency – Conduct of Tahsildar deprecated for generating litigation despite clear judicial directions [Paras 14, 17–19].

Succession of Ritual Duties – Right of Legal Heirs – Petitioner’s Sons Permitted – Due to advanced age of original petitioner, relief sought to allow his sons to perform Karaga – Held: Children of hereditary archak are rightful successors unless disqualified – Directed Tahsildar to permit second petitioner Ramesh to perform Karaga with responsibility and conditions – Performance of Karaga subject to future conduct [Paras 10, 16, 20(ii)].

Challenge by Rival Claimant – Claim of Vahinkula Seva Sangha Rejected – Respondent No.6 not in archak lineage – Held: Sangha’s claim has no legal basis – Performance by 6th respondent earlier was unauthorized and contrary to law – Writ petition filed by respondent No.6 dismissed – Recognition not sustainable without archak lineage or supporting judicial order [Paras 7, 12–13, 20(iii)].

Litigation History – Consistent Judicial Findings Favor Petitioners – Multiple rounds of litigation from 2011 to 2025 consistently upheld petitioners’ hereditary rights – Supreme Court dismissed SLP and directed fair hearing – Held: Earlier judgments cannot be diluted by administrative action – Reiterated finality of settled civil rights through decrees [Paras 8, 15, 18–19].

Decision:

W.P. No.13103 of 2022 allowed – Impugned orders quashed – W.P. No.9045 of 2025 partly allowed – Tahsildar directed to permit petitioner’s son Ramesh to perform Karaga, subject to conduct – W.P. No.7092 of 2025 filed by rival Sangha dismissed – Pending applications disposed [Para 20].

Education Law – Distance Education Degrees – Cut-off Dates Declared Invalid – Earlier judgment had prescribed 29.03.2010 (Deemed/Private Institutions) and 01.11.2012 (State Universities) as cut-off dates for recognition – Held: Such cut-off dates arbitrary, violate Article 21A and right to education – No evidence of irregularities at study centres or exams conducted – Academic qualifications obtained via distance mode upheld, subject to verification of affiliations and academic quality by UGC [Paras 32–34, 45–47].

Right to Education – Article 21A – Access to Distance Learning – Constitutional Protection – Held: Territorial restrictions imposed on examination/study centres of universities offering distance education defeat accessibility – Students cannot be denied educational and promotional opportunities due to administrative policies contrary to the core principles of remote education – Online and remote education valid where universities are duly recognized by UGC and maintain academic standards [Paras 31–33, 39–42].

UGC Guidelines – No Blanket Ban on Centres Outside Territorial Jurisdiction – Notifications Quashed – Held: Guidelines issued in 2010 and 2012 by DEC/UGC imposing jurisdictional limits on study centres held irrational – UGC failed to contest the writ petitions and did not appeal—Deemed to have acquiesced – Notifications (Annexures P-51 & P-53) quashed to extent they restrict operation of remote centres without UGC approval [Paras 21–30, 45].

Judicial Review – UGC’s Non-participation – Consequences – Held: In multiple LPAs, UGC was impleaded but failed to respond or contest the case—Its silence amounts to waiver and acquiescence to the directions issued – Argument of violation of natural justice rejected [Paras 15–18, 21].

Administrative Law – Degree Verification by Government Departments – Direction Issued – Held: While blanket cut-off dates quashed, recognition of degrees still subject to verification of institutional recognition, programme-wise recognition, and compliance with UGC norms—Verification to be done by government/UGC on case-to-case basis [Paras 44–46, 48].

Employment Law – Right to Consideration for Appointment/Promotion – Distance Degrees Not a Bar – Held: Unless degree is essential qualification and found invalid on verification, candidates cannot be denied regularization or promotion merely due to acquisition of qualification through distance mode – Distinction made between core and additional qualifications [Paras 40–43, 48–49].

Decision:
LPA-2003-2019 allowed – Cut-off dates and UGC notifications quashed
LPAs filed by State of Punjab disposed of – State directed to consider claims without relying on cut-off dates, subject to verification
CWP Nos. 2438 and 27015 of 2021 disposed of – Directions issued for consideration of appointment
LPA-1105-2021 allowed – Matter remanded for fresh decision without applying cut-off dates
LPA-450-2021 dismissed – Disputed factual issue; liberty granted to petitioner to seek civil remedies
Directions for UGC and Government – To verify institutional recognition, ensure academic standards, and provide proper invigilation in exams at centres outside university HQs [Paras 44–52].
 

Criminal L:aw – Quashing - Negotiable Instruments Act – Director’s Vicarious Liability – Section 141 N.I. Act – Complaint Quashed – Petitioner was arrayed as an accused being one of the directors of the company – Allegations in the complaint only made general averments against the petitioner, whereas specific role and responsibility of managing day-to-day affairs attributed only to the signatory and managing director – Held: Mere designation as director not sufficient to attract vicarious liability under Section 141 – Quashing of complaint proper [Paras 6-10]. 
 
Criminal Proceedings – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Absence of Specific Averments – Permissible – Complaint did not contain specific role or responsibility of the petitioner in conduct of business of the company – Petitioner neither signatory to the cheque nor shown as handling financial operations – Held: In view of settled legal principles, permitting trial against petitioner would amount to abuse of process – Complaint quashed qua petitioner [Paras 7-11]. 
 
Judicial Precedent – Reliance on Binding Authority – Vicarious Liability Principles – Applied – Court relied on Supreme Court decisions in National Small Industries Corporation v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, Susela Padmavathy Amma v. Bharti Airtel Ltd., and Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd. – Reiterated that specific and clear averments against directors are a sine qua non for fastening vicarious liability – General allegations insufficient [Paras 7-10]. 
 
Decision – Quashing Allowed – Criminal Complaint No. 8437 of 2016 pending before CJM, Mehsana quashed qua petitioner – Proceedings against other accused to continue – Trial to be concluded within six months [Para 11].