Criminal Law – Abetment to Suicide – Petition for quashing FIR for abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. Petitioner accused of harassing and blackmailing the deceased, leading to his suicide. Suicide note recovered implicating the petitioner. Held, mere demand for repayment of a loan does not amount to abetment, but combined with harassment, blackmail, and threats, it can compel a person to commit suicide [Paras 1-28].

Legal Principles – Quashing FIR – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court emphasized the parameters for exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. Held, FIR and accompanying material must disclose a cognizable offence. Truthfulness or sufficiency of evidence not to be assessed at this stage [Paras 10-29].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner directed to appear before the Trial Court. Observations made confined to the disposal of the petition without bearing on the merits of the case [Paras 30-32].

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].

Financial Upgradation – ACP and MACP Schemes – Entitlement of Respondent – Challenge to orders directing financial benefits under ACP and MACP schemes to the respondent Ved Prakash on parity with junior colleague Raj Pal – High Court quashes Tribunal orders granting benefits, citing Supreme Court’s non-precedent setting dismissal of Raj Pal’s case – Direction to refix and release respondent’s pension and benefits within four weeks without recoveries for payments already made [Paras 1-33].

Precedent and Binding Nature – Supreme Court’s dismissal of SLP due to delay – Clarification that such dismissal does not set a precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution – High Court emphasizes that Raj Pal’s case should not be considered binding for similar cases [Paras 20, 29-31].

Provisional Pension and Seniority – Respondent’s entitlement to provisional pension based on seniority – Tribunal’s decision based on earlier consent given by counsel for the petitioner – High Court orders re-fixation of pension considering peculiar facts, without recoveries from amounts already disbursed [Paras 22, 31-32].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Impugned orders quashed – Directions for re-fixation and release of respondent’s pension and other benefits within four weeks – No recoveries or deductions from payments already made.

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.

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].

Speedy Trial – Right to Expeditious Disposal – Petitioner sought directions for the swift resolution of the complaint filed against the respondent for non-repayment of a friendly loan – Emphasized respondent’s attempts to delay proceedings by avoiding court appearances – Court referenced precedents on the right to a speedy trial, affirming it as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 – Directed Trial Court to expedite the complaint proceedings [Paras 1-10].

Judicial Precedents – Right to Speedy Trial – Cited key Supreme Court decisions underscoring the significance of timely judicial processes to prevent undue incarceration and to uphold justice – Highlighted the detrimental impact of delays on the accused’s ability to defend themselves and the prosecution’s case integrity [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Trial Court directed to dispose of the complaint bearing No. COMA-7558-2021 titled “Anish Mehra Vs. Sunil Jha” expeditiously, preferably within one year – Emphasized the obligation of criminal courts to ensure speedy trials as part of the fundamental rights [Paras 8-10].

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]. 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Consensual Relationship

Applicant sought quashing of FIR alleging rape and cheating, contending the relationship was consensual and lasted over 31 years – Complainant delayed filing FIR until Applicant ceased contact – High Court found no element of force, noting complainant’s continued association with Applicant and lack of prior complaints – FIR quashed due to improbability of allegations and delayed reporting without sufficient explanation – [Paras 1-14].

Delayed Filing of FIR – Explanation and Evidentiary Considerations

Complainant’s explanation for delayed FIR found insufficient – High Court emphasized requirement for timely complaints, especially in prolonged relationships purportedly involving consent – Absence of threats or coercion in the intervening years highlighted – [Paras 9-10].

Abuse of Process – Categories for Quashing Proceedings

Case fell within categories justifying quashing: allegations inherently improbable, manifestly attended with malafide intent, and based on delayed, unsubstantiated claims – FIR found to lack prima facie evidence of offenses alleged – [Paras 11-12].

Decision:

Application allowed – FIR No. 303/2018 dated August 8, 2018, quashed – Rule made absolute – [Para 14].

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].