Bail - Rape Allegation – Consensual Relationship – Bail Granted - Alleged victim, a 25-year-old educated woman, claimed she was raped after intoxication and later coerced with a forged marriage – Court noted delays in FIR, consensual travel and cohabitation, and contradictions in victim's statements – Found prima facie indications of a soured relationship rather than criminal conduct – Bail granted [Paras 4–10, 30–32, 42].

False Promise to Marry – Not Always Rape – Legal Principle Affirmed - Court cited Supreme Court precedents (Deepak Gulati, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, Sheikh Arif) emphasizing that consensual relationships, even if based on failed marriage promises, do not always amount to rape – Held: No evidence that the promise was false from inception [Paras 23–24, 34–35].

Delayed FIR – Adverse Inference – Relationship Timeline Considered - FIR filed nearly five months after the alleged initial offence, despite multiple interactions and trips with the applicant – Court noted the absence of immediate complaint undermined the rape narrative [Paras 12, 42].

Morality vs Criminality – Immorality Not Penal – Social Commentary - Court reflected on societal shifts and increasing misuse of penal provisions post emotional fallout – Held: Not all unethical conduct amounts to crime – Case viewed as fallout of failed personal relations, not rape [Paras 30–33].

Right to Liberty – Bail as Rule, Jail as Exception – No Flight Risk - Court reiterated constitutional protection under Article 21 – Found no risk of accused absconding or influencing witnesses – No prior criminal record except related case – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 37–41].

Final Decision – Bail Allowed – Conditions Imposed - Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties, with directions to appear on key trial dates – Breach of conditions to result in cancellation of bail [Paras 42–44].
 

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Obstructionist Claim – Fabricated Ownership Documents – Application Dismissed – The Applicant, son of the original judgment debtor, filed an obstructionist notice in an execution proceeding based on a sale deed dated 26.11.1990 – Both Trial and Appellate Courts found the sale deed to be unregistered, unstamped, and supported by inconsistent and manipulated records – Held: The Applicant failed to establish any independent right or title, and the Courts rightly dismissed the obstructionist application [Paras 14-18, 25].

Professional Misconduct – Role of Advocate – Bar Council Rules – Enquiry Ordered – Advocate Mr. Vijay Kurle sought adjournment after arguments were concluded and judgment was to be passed – Despite being aware of proceedings, he attempted to delay the matter by filing vakalatnama at a late stage – Held: Conduct was prima facie misconduct, violating Bar Council rules – Directed: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to initiate enquiry [Paras 3-10].

Doctrine of Clean Hands – Abuse of Process – Fabricated Pleadings – Dismissal Justified – The Applicant suppressed material facts, relied on contradictory sale deeds, and attempted to delay proceedings – Held: Courts are not to be misused to perpetuate falsehoods – Petitioner did not approach with clean hands and is not entitled to any relief – Petition rightly dismissed [Paras 20-22].

Eviction Decree – Delay in Execution – Obstructionist Proceedings – Court Receiver Appointed – Despite decree passed in 2016, execution was delayed for 9 years due to obstructionist proceedings filed by son of judgment debtor – Held: Obstructionist proceedings based on fraudulent documents were abuse of process – Receiver appointed to take immediate possession and hand over to decree-holder [Paras 22-25].

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].
 

Rent Law - Eviction – Bonafide Requirement – Section 11(3) of Kerala Rent Control Act – Reversal of Concurrent Findings – Rent Control Courts wrongly placed burden on landlord – Held: The burden of proof to establish existence of alternate vacant premises lies on the tenant, not landlord – Landlord need not plead or prove non-availability of other premises – Orders set aside and eviction granted [Paras 4-6, 9].

Tenant's Pleadings – Requirement to Specify Vacant Premises – First Proviso to Section 11(3) – Not Satisfied – The tenant vaguely stated availability of other rooms but failed to identify or prove any specific vacant building in landlord's possession – Held: Failure to discharge burden under first proviso to Section 11(3) disqualifies tenant from opposing eviction – Eviction allowed [Paras 5-6].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – Misdirection in Applying Law – Both courts below misdirected themselves by imposing burden on landlord – Held: Interference under Section 20 of the Act justified due to legal error and misapplication of precedents [Paras 4, 9].

Decision – Eviction Decreed – Six Months’ Time Granted to Vacate – High Court reversed concurrent findings and allowed eviction – Tenant granted six months’ time to vacate subject to filing affidavit and clearing rent arrears – Conditions imposed for continued occupation during interim period [Para 10].

Service Law - Transfer – Equivalence of Post – Non-Cadre Transfer Held Illegal – Appellant transferred from post of Chief Medical & Health Officer (CM&HO), a cadre post, to Deputy Controller, which is not included in the amended cadre list of 2012 – Held: Transfer constitutes deputation to a non-cadre post without statutory backing – Reliance on outdated rules misled Single Judge – Transfer order quashed [Paras 15–18, 22].

Deputation – Consent Requirement – Transfer Beyond Cadre Requires Consent – Appellant’s posting to Deputy Controller post amounts to deputation – Held: Deputation necessitates voluntary consent, which was not obtained – Such transfer is invalid in absence of employee’s consent [Paras 19–21].

Stigma in Transfer – Allegations Unsubstantiated – Complaints Largely Closed or Found Motivated – Transfer said to be based on administrative grounds pending inquiries – Held: No credible administrative exigency made out – Transfer found to be indirectly punitive in nature [Paras 4–5, 14].

Judicial Review – Interference in Exceptional Cases – Transfer Impacts Career Prospects – Held: Although courts normally do not interfere in transfer matters, interference justified where service rights are affected and post transferred to is of lower rank and non-cadre – High Court intervention warranted [Paras 23–25].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Transfer Order Set Aside – Special appeal allowed, impugned transfer order and learned Single Judge’s decision set aside – Appellant directed to be reinstated as CM&HO, Udaipur with consequential pecuniary benefits [Paras 26–27].
 

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the NI Act - Limitation for Sending Demand Notice – Exclusion of Date of Intimation – Notice Held Within Time – The Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the statutory notice under Section 138(b) was sent on the 31st day after intimation of dishonour – Held: The date of receipt of bank intimation must be excluded while computing the 30-day period – On applying the correct legal standard, the notice was issued within time – Trial Court’s view was contrary to binding precedent and hence liable to be set aside [Paras 17-19].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Material Alteration in Cheque – Signature of Accused Validates Correction – Conviction Restored – Trial Court found material alteration in cheque amounting to Rs. 11,70,000/- as fatal to complainant’s case – Held: Correction in amount was duly counter-signed by accused – No plausible explanation or defense was put forth by accused – No rebuttal evidence led – Mere admission by complainant insufficient to rebut presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Finding of material alteration erroneous in law [Paras 20-22].

Cheque Dishonour – Failure to Rebut Presumption – No Reply to Demand Notice – Conviction Warranted – Despite receiving statutory demand notice, the accused did not dispute the liability or issue a reply – No evidence of lack of financial capacity or alternate explanation for issuance of cheque – Appellate Court found presumption under Section 139 unshaken and complainant's case proved – Judgment of acquittal reversed [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal against Acquittal – Principles for Appellate Interference – Trial Court Ignored Material Evidence – When the Trial Court’s findings are based on misapplication of law and disregard of material evidence, the Appellate Court may interfere – Present case warranted interference due to perverse reasoning on both limitation and cheque alteration issues – Judgment of acquittal set aside, appeal allowed [Paras 22-23].

Civil Law - Transfer of Execution Proceedings – Section 24 CPC – Mere Apprehension Not Sufficient – Petitioner sought transfer of execution petitions E.P.No.2/2024 and E.P.No.3/2024 from Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narsapur to III Additional District Judge, Kakinada – Held: No legal ground made out – Execution petitions pertain to decrees passed by Narsapur Court concerning property within its jurisdiction – No reason to bypass normal forum of execution [Paras 5–6, 11–12].

Bias Allegation Against Judicial Officer – Not Tenable Post Transfer – Petitioner cited complaint against X Additional District Judge, Narsapur as basis for apprehension of injustice – Held: The concerned Judge has already been transferred – Apprehension no longer reasonable – Transfer cannot be granted based on vague or past allegations, as per settled law [Paras 7, 10].

Execution Jurisdiction – Territorial and Procedural Boundaries – Property Lies Within Local Limits – Held: As per Sections 38 and 39 CPC, executing court’s territorial jurisdiction over the property is paramount – Order XXI Rules 3 and 48 are not affected by Section 39(4) – Since property lies within Narsapur, execution cannot be shifted outside without legal cause [Paras 8, 11].

Multiplicity of Litigation – No Justification for Transfer Absent Identity of Parties and Cause – Petitioner’s other execution-related claim petitions pending before X Additional District Court at Narsapur – Held: Commonality in schedule property not sufficient ground for transfer – No identity of cause of action or parties between suits to justify consolidation [Para 11].

Decision: Both Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions dismissed – No valid legal or factual ground to shift proceedings – Mere apprehension without proof of bias or legal infirmity is insufficient to invoke transfer under Section 24 CPC [Paras 12–13].
 

Civil Law - Will Execution – Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof Not Discharged – Appeal Dismissed – The plaintiff relied upon an unregistered Will dated 09.03.2009 allegedly executed by Santra Devi to claim ownership over her estate – The Lower Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s findings, holding that the Will was not validly proved – The High Court affirmed this, finding serious contradictions in the statements of attesting witnesses and the scribe, and inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s own deposition – Held: Will execution was shrouded in suspicious circumstances which the plaintiff failed to adequately explain, thus failing to discharge the burden of proof as required under Section 63 of the Succession Act [Paras 17-26].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Not Maintainable – The Court reiterated that while framing of substantial question of law is not required under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, existence of a legal question is still necessary – The appeal was found to merely seek re-appreciation of evidence already examined by the Lower Appellate Court – Held: No misreading or perverse appreciation of evidence found – Appeal not maintainable [Paras 16, 26-28].

Inconsistent Testimony – Role of Attesting Witnesses and Scribe – Will Disbelieved – The statements of attesting witnesses Ved Prakash and Raj Kumar as well as scribe Anil Kumar Srivastava were materially inconsistent with each other and the pleadings – The plaintiff himself contradicted his previous statements made during mutation proceedings – Held: Evidence on record failed to satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court regarding the Will’s authenticity – Will rightly disbelieved [Paras 21-25].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Lower Appellate Court’s Findings Affirmed – The Court upheld the findings of the Lower Appellate Court and found no grounds to interfere – Held: Appeal stands dismissed [Para 28].
 

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].