Criminal Procedure Code – Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Opportunity of Hearing – Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated without proper notice and opportunity to the petitioners – Orders passed in violation of principles of natural justice – Proceedings quashed [Paras 1-14].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 146 Cr.P.C. – Attachment of Property – Emergency – Magistrate’s power to attach property in case of emergency – Necessary conditions and due process not followed – No emergency situation justifying attachment – Orders quashed [Paras 9-11].

Property Law – Auction Sale – Title Vesting – Auction sale confirmed and sale certificate issued – Title vested in purchaser – Property possession handed over by Advocate Commissioner – Section 30 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 not availed by aggrieved party – Criminal proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. not maintainable [Paras 12-14].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Entire criminal proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. quashed – Orders of attachment and appointment of receiver set aside.

Service Law – Termination – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Petitioner, an Anganwadi Worker, terminated without enquiry due to ACB case pendency – Court held termination illegal post-acquittal in criminal case, emphasizing principle of “innocent until proven guilty” – Mere pendency of criminal proceedings insufficient for termination without due enquiry [Paras 1-18]. 

Disciplinary Action – Principles of Natural Justice – Termination without issuing show cause notice or conducting enquiry violated natural justice – Court directed reinstatement with 50% back wages and service benefits – Highlighted need for fair disciplinary proceedings [Paras 13-18]. 

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned termination proceedings set aside – Petitioner to be reinstated with 50% back wages and all service benefits to be computed and paid within four weeks [Paras 17-18]. 

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Sexual Assault – Appellant convicted for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor girl – Conviction under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act by the trial court – High Court partially upholds and partially overturns the conviction – Insufficient evidence for Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 366 IPC – Conviction under Section 363 IPC upheld [Paras 1-34].

Witness Testimony – Reliability of Victim’s Statement – Victim declared hostile, denied sexual assault – Medical evidence and recovery of items questioned due to procedural lapses and lack of corroboration – High Court notes the importance of consistency in witness testimony and procedural correctness [Paras 19-24].

Forensic Evidence – DNA and Medical Examination – Issues with sample collection and preservation – Prosecution failed to prove chain of custody for forensic samples – High Court rules that forensic evidence was unreliable due to procedural gaps [Paras 25-29].

Section 363 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Despite victim’s hostile testimony, sufficient evidence to convict under Section 363 IPC – Appellant’s actions constituted kidnapping from lawful guardianship [Para 33].

Section 366 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act – Convictions Overturned – Lack of evidence to prove intent to marry or sexual intercourse – High Court sets aside these convictions [Para 34].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 363 IPC upheld, sentences under Section 366 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act set aside – Appellant to be released as period of sentence already undergone [Paras 34-36].

Lok Adalat Awards – Legitimacy of Settlements – The RSRTC challenged the National Lok Adalat awards on the grounds that the counsel who signed the settlements was unauthorized. The court held that the awards, passed under the RSRTC's policy allowing reinstatement without back wages, were valid and binding. It emphasized that Lok Adalat awards have the same finality as a civil court decree under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. RSRTC's plea to invalidate the awards on technical grounds was rejected [Paras 1-25].

Estoppel Against RSRTC – The court noted that RSRTC's actions, including not challenging the panel counsel who signed the settlement and continuing to entrust him with further briefs, amounted to estoppel. RSRTC cannot disown the consent given before the Lok Adalat and must adhere to the settlement [Paras 12-15].

Finality and Binding Nature of Lok Adalat Awards – The awards passed by the Lok Adalat are final and binding as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The court reinforced that such awards should not be overturned on technicalities unless fraud or jurisdictional issues are evident [Paras 18-23].

Decision: The writ petitions filed by RSRTC against the National Lok Adalat awards were dismissed. The petitions by workmen for the implementation of the awards were allowed, with the court directing RSRTC to implement the awards within three months, failing which the workmen would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000 each [Paras 23-26].

Promissory Note – Execution and Validity – Plaintiff claimed recovery based on a promissory note executed by the defendant – Defendant denied execution and alleged forgery – Trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff – High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment, emphasizing the plaintiff’s successful discharge of the burden of proof regarding the execution and consideration of the promissory note – Defendant failed to substantiate the defense of forgery with sufficient evidence [Paras 1-21].

Burden of Proof – Shifting and Rebuttal – Court examined the application of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which presumes the consideration for a promissory note unless disproved – Defendant’s failure to rebut the presumption adequately resulted in the confirmation of the trial court’s findings – Court highlighted the adequacy of plaintiff’s evidence through testimonies of witnesses and the lack of credible contradictory evidence from the defendant [Paras 17-20].

Signature Comparison – Judicial Review – Under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, court independently compared disputed signatures with admitted ones – Trial court and appellate court both found signatures to be identical – Court reiterated that judicial comparison of signatures is permissible and affirmed trial court’s decision [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s decree and judgment affirmed – No costs ordered – Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.

Criminal Law – Rape and Aggravated Sexual Assault – Conviction Affirmed: Appellant convicted of raping a 7-year-old girl (P.W.2) and attempting to rape another minor (P.W.3) – Conviction based on the consistent and reliable testimonies of the victims, corroborated by medical evidence showing physical injuries consistent with sexual assault – Defense’s argument of false implication due to family disputes was rejected [Paras 1-30]. 

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Consistency: Sole eyewitnesses, the minor victims, provided consistent accounts of the assault – Testimonies of P.W.1 (mother of P.W.2) and P.W.4 (father of P.W.3) corroborated the victims' statements – Medical evidence confirmed injuries consistent with rape and attempted rape – Court held the victim testimonies as reliable and credible [Paras 10-21]. 

Procedural Compliance under POCSO Act: Delay in recording victim testimonies justified due to administrative constraints and the accused’s delay in engaging counsel – The court found the explanation for the delay plausible and not detrimental to the prosecution's case [Paras 29-30]. 

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the appellant affirmed – Appellant granted liberty to seek state government remission of the sentence considering mitigating factors and time already served [Para 31]. 

Rent Control – Bonafide Requirement – Eviction of Tenant –

Plaintiffs sought eviction of defendant from the suit premises for bonafide personal need and office use – Defendant contended possession of entire ground floor, claimed misrepresentation of facts – Courts below found plaintiffs’ requirement genuine and bonafide – Defendant’s claim of occupying four blocks without evidence rejected – Eviction upheld [Paras 1-25].

Nuisance and Annoyance – Tenant’s Conduct –

Defendant obstructed plaintiffs’ entry to the suit premises – Defendant falsely claimed entire property as tenancy, though only two blocks were rented – Conduct amounted to nuisance and annoyance – Eviction justified [Paras 26-29].

Default in Rent Payment – Tenant’s Obligation –

Defendant failed to pay rent after April 2009 and did not deposit arrears upon suit summons – Ground for eviction valid under MRC Act – Non-payment established [Paras 30-31].

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – Eviction decree upheld – Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on Petitioner-Defendant – Respondents entitled to withdraw deposited amounts with interest [Paras 32-33].

Criminal Law – Discharge Petition: Petitioner sought discharge in a case involving rash and negligent driving resulting in fatalities – Trial Court dismissed the discharge petition – High Court reviewed the material and found no sufficient ground for Section 304(ii) IPC but sufficient for Sections 304-A, 337, and 338 IPC – Discharge petition partly allowed [Paras 1-14].

Facts and Circumstances – Application of Section 304(ii) IPC: Court held that facts did not warrant charge under Section 304(ii) IPC as the accused’s conduct, though rash and negligent, did not demonstrate the necessary knowledge to constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Case more appropriately falls under Sections 304-A, 337, and 338 IPC [Paras 7-13].

Procedure under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC – Revision: High Court found no illegality or irregularity in the Trial Court’s procedure in considering the discharge petition but differed on the applicability of Section 304(ii) IPC – Revision partly allowed, and case directed for trial under appropriate sections [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed in part – Charge under Section 304(ii) IPC set aside – Case remanded for trial under Sections 304-A, 337, and 338 IPC – Directed to be tried by Judicial Magistrate of the First Class [Para 14].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of suit on grounds of being barred by law due to previous suit dismissal under Order IX Rule 9 CPC – Court examines whether suit is barred by law solely based on plaint averments – Held, suit not manifestly barred; averments did not disclose the suit as barred by law without defense consideration [Paras 1-22].

Previous Suits and Cause of Action – Earlier suits dismissed in default – New suit on same cause of action challenged – Petitioner’s application for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed – Order IX Rule 9 CPC applicability discussed – Fresh suit maintainable as per plaint averments without written statement defense [Paras 4-13].

Judicial Interpretation – Reference to precedents on plaint rejection – Supreme Court guidelines on Order VII Rule 11 CPC applicability reviewed – Only plaint averments considered; defense irrelevant at this stage [Paras 15-20].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned orders dated 21.04.2022 and 06.01.2024 upheld – No bar found under the law for filing the current suit [Para 21-23].