Civil Writ Petition – Registration of Sale Deeds – Title Dispute – Refusal to Register Sale Deeds Upheld – Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel Sub-Registrar to register sale deeds concerning flats constructed over disputed land – Respondents resisted registration citing pending civil suit over ownership and criminal investigation into alleged forgery of link documents – Court held that when serious title disputes and allegations of fraud exist, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to compel registration – Held: Authorities are justified in refusing registration pending adjudication in civil and criminal forums – Writ Petition dismissed with liberty to avail alternative remedies [Paras 21-30].

Registration Authority Powers – Scope and Limits – Authority to Refuse Registration Recognized – Sub-Registrar and District Registrar refused registration due to fraud investigation and ownership dispute – Court held that although registration authorities cannot decide title disputes, they are empowered to refuse registration where fraud or illegality is evident or alleged – Held: Refusal of registration in this case is neither arbitrary nor illegal – Mandamus declined [Paras 22-24].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Availability of Alternative Remedy – Statutory Remedies under Registration Act – Petitioners bypassed remedies under Section 77 of the Registration Act and approached High Court directly – Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised when effective statutory remedies exist, particularly in fact-intensive disputes – Held: Petition not maintainable under Article 226 due to availability of alternative remedy [Para 29].

Title Dispute and Judicial Forum – Necessity of Adjudication by Civil Court – Court emphasized that disputed ownership involving allegations of forgery and criminality cannot be resolved through writ proceedings – Held: Appropriate remedy lies in civil court for declaration of title and not before the High Court under writ jurisdiction – Writ dismissed with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies [Paras 25-29].

Final Order – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Liberty to Petitioners – Court refrained from commenting on the merits of ownership or validity of documents – Writ petition dismissed without costs, granting liberty to petitioners to approach civil courts for appropriate relief – [Paras 29-30].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Sections 143, 149, 188, 268 IPC – FIR Quashed - The FIR filed against a sitting MLA accused of participating in a protest without permission was found to be vague and lacking necessary ingredients of the alleged offences – The protest, even if held without police permission, did not constitute an offence under Section 141 IPC – No allegations of violence, obstruction, or disturbance were made out – Held: FIR quashed as continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 2, 4, 6].

Section 188 IPC – Requirement of Sanction Under Section 195 CrPC – Bar on Police-Initiated FIR - Held: Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is barred unless initiated through a complaint in writing by the concerned public servant as per Section 195 CrPC – A police-registered FIR is incompetent for initiating prosecution under this section – FIR quashed on this ground as well [Paras 7, 8].

Unlawful Assembly – No Common Object to Commit Cognizable Offence – Protest Held Not Unlawful - Participation in a protest without permit does not attract Section 143 IPC unless the object was to commit an offence punishable under Section 141 IPC – Right to protest and dissent protected under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) – No material to show use of criminal force, violence or obstruction – FIR fails to establish ingredients of unlawful assembly [Paras 6, 13, 18-22].

Licensing Order – No Penal Provision in Protest Order – FIR Not Sustainable - Bengaluru Police Commissioner’s 2021 Order regulates protests but does not provide penal consequences for its violation – Violation of such an order, if any, cannot attract criminal prosecution in the absence of penal backing – FIR under IPC provisions not justified [Paras 2, 6, 20].

Decision – Petition Allowed – FIR Quashed - Entire FIR and proceedings in Crime No. 439/2023 registered by Bommanahalli Police Station against the petitioner quashed – Allegations held insufficient to constitute any offence – Petition succeeds [Paras 2, 4, 6, 7, 8].

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Conviction – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – Section 138 NI Act – Dismissal Set Aside - The petitioner challenged the order dismissing his appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act for non-appearance – The High Court held that appeal against conviction must be decided on merits even if the appellant is absent – Relying on binding precedents, the Court emphasized the doctrine of audi alteram partem and the necessity to avoid arbitrary orders – Held: Order of dismissal unsustainable and set aside [Paras 1-4, 7-9].

Principle of Natural Justice – Right to Be Heard – Remand for Fresh Consideration – The Court reiterated that no person should be condemned unheard, and the failure of counsel or absence of the accused should not lead to dismissal without adjudication on merits – Held: Matter remanded to appellate court for fresh decision after hearing petitioner [Paras 5-9].

Judicial Duty – Speaking Order Requirement – Appellate Court Failed to Record Reasons – The High Court criticized the mechanical and non-reasoned order of the appellate court, observing that every judicial decision must be supported by reasons reflecting due application of mind – Held: Appellate court directed to pass reasoned and speaking order after hearing all parties [Paras 8-9].

Cited Precedents – Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed in Default – The Court relied on Bani Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 2439, and Sakunthala v. State, Cr. Appeal No. 474/2020, to hold that appellate courts must decide conviction appeals on merits, irrespective of presence of parties – Held: Dismissal without hearing violates settled law [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Order Dismissing Appeal Set Aside – Revision Petition Allowed – The impugned dismissal order dated 23.08.2022 set aside – Case remanded for hearing and fresh adjudication on merits – Petitioner directed to appear before appellate court on 04/08/2025 [Para 9].

Criminal Law - Conviction for Rape of Minor – Sole Testimony of Victim – Section 376(2)(f) IPC – Conviction Confirmed - The appellant challenged his conviction for rape of a four-year-old girl, alleging false implication and lack of corroboration – The Court upheld the trial court’s conviction relying on the credible testimony of the minor victim, corroborated by her mother and medical evidence showing hymenal rupture and recent injury – The absence of semen or injury on the accused was held not fatal to the prosecution – Held: Conviction under Section 376(2)(f) justified as prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7-13, 18].

Medical Evidence – Hymenal Tear and Absence of Semen – Conviction Upheld – The defence raised the absence of semen and blood stains in support of innocence – Court held presence of hymenal rupture within 12-48 hours of incident corroborated the allegation – The Court relied on medical testimony that semen need not always be traceable in child rape cases – Held: Medical evidence supported occurrence of forcible sexual assault [Paras 12-14, 17].

Victim’s Statement – Sufficiency for Conviction – Sole Evidence Sufficient – The Court reiterated that conviction can be based solely on victim’s testimony if found trustworthy – Despite minor inconsistencies due to age, her statement was consistent and corroborated by circumstantial and medical evidence – Held: Victim’s evidence reliable and sufficient to convict appellant [Paras 9-11].

Plea to Convert Offence to Outraging Modesty – Rejected – The appellant sought to reduce conviction to Section 354 IPC based on lack of penetration proof – Court rejected plea, noting medical evidence proved penetration and hymenal rupture – Held: Act constituted rape and not merely outraging of modesty [Paras 15-16].

Sentence – Life Imprisonment Upheld – Considering the heinousness of the crime against a four-year-old child, the Court refused to interfere with life imprisonment – Held: Sentence proportionate to gravity of offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC [Para 18].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and life sentence maintained – Appellant directed to surrender to serve sentence – No case for leniency found [Paras 18-19].

Land Acquisition – Compensation for Unlawful Possession – Delay Not a Bar – Judgment Reversed – The appellants sought compensation for 8 kanals and 13 marlas of land taken by the Rural Development Department in 1958-59 without acquisition – Writ Court dismissed the petition on the ground of delay – Division Bench held that such possession without due process violates Article 300-A – Delay and laches cannot be invoked when the State continues in illegal possession – Writ Court judgment set aside – Directions issued for acquisition and compensation under the 2013 Act [Paras 1, 5-6, 14, 22-23].

Right to Property – Constitutional and Human Right – Forcible Dispossession Unconstitutional – State Action Condemned – The Court held that forcible dispossession of private land without acquisition violates constitutional rights under Article 300-A – Relying on Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court emphasized the continuing nature of such violation – The plea of adverse possession by the State is impermissible in a welfare democracy [Paras 13-14, 16].

Donation Plea – Unsupported by Record – State’s Claim Rejected – The respondents’ contention that the land was voluntarily donated was not supported by any documentary or credible oral evidence – The plea was raised only in reply affidavit, without any basis in administrative communications – Held: Presumption cannot replace proof – Donation claim rightly rejected [Paras 19-21].

Continuing Cause of Action – Compensation Not Time-Barred – Judicial Conscience Invoked – The Court held that unauthorized occupation of land by the State constitutes a continuing wrong, giving rise to recurring cause of action – Delay cannot bar relief when the act shocks judicial conscience – Compensation must be paid even decades later if possession is unlawful [Paras 14, 16].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Acquisition Ordered – The judgment of the Writ Court was set aside – The respondents directed to initiate acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act within four weeks and pay compensation to the appellants – Held: Justice demands restoration or compensation when land is forcibly taken without lawful authority [Para 23].

Criminal Law – Rape - Section 376(3), 342, 504 of the IPC - Section 3, 4(2) of the POCSO Act – Appeal Against Conviction – Acquittal - False Rape Allegation – Discrepant Testimony – Medico-Legal Contradictions – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted for offences under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act on charges of raping his minor cousin – The Court found major contradictions in the testimonies of the victim and her parents regarding the time of incident, manner of alleged offence, and involvement of neighbours – Medical examination showed no recent sexual activity or injury, contradicting the prosecution’s narrative – Held: Serious inconsistencies and absence of corroborative evidence raise reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable, appellant acquitted [Paras 18-52].

Weight of Medical Evidence – Medico-Legal Reports Prevail Over Oral Testimony – Despite victim’s allegations, medical reports indicated absence of injury and recent intercourse – The Court held that when medical and pathological evidence contradict oral testimonies, courts must exercise caution – Allegations not corroborated by scientific evidence, acquittal warranted [Paras 21-22, 42].

Animosity as Motive for False Implication – Minor Property Dispute – The Court noted the background of animosity between the families due to a trivial dispute over burning of a saree – Such disputes, though minor, have increasingly led to false accusations of serious crimes like rape – Held: Prosecution failed to establish motive strong enough to justify conviction, particularly given inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence [Paras 9, 25, 48].

Judicial Duty Towards Unrepresented Accused – Protection of Fundamental Rights – The Court observed with concern that the appellant, a poor person with no legal representation, was incarcerated for over nine years without proper legal assistance – Emphasised the duty of courts to safeguard rights of such individuals and prevent miscarriage of justice – Held: In such circumstances, independent judicial scrutiny of evidence is imperative to prevent wrongful conviction [Paras 10-17, 54-56].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal Ordered – The Court set aside the trial court’s judgment convicting the appellant and ordered immediate release – Directed the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi to ensure the appellant’s safe return to his home and restoration of possession – Also ordered refund of any fine amount paid by the appellant [Paras 53-56].

Civil law  – Declaration of Title and Possession – Failure to Prove Title – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant-plaintiff sought declaration of title over the ‘B’ schedule property and consequential relief of possession and injunction – Plaintiff failed to establish title by not producing foundational documents, including the prior sale deeds, and failed to prove encroachment by defendants – The High Court held that plaintiff must prove his own title without relying on weaknesses in the defendant’s case – Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16-24].

Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings – No Interference Warranted – The Court reiterated that under Section 100 CPC, second appeals lie only on substantial questions of law – Appreciation of facts and evidence by lower courts, unless perverse or ignoring material evidence, does not justify interference – No such question arose in the present case – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 13-27].

Encroachment Claim – Absence of Proof – Case of Plaintiff Disbelieved – Plaintiff’s allegation of encroachment in 2007 was disproved by evidence showing compound wall constructed in 2003 by defendants – Boundaries described in sale deeds were inconsistent with plaintiff’s claim – Held: No basis to declare title or grant possession to the plaintiff [Paras 21-24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Substantial Question of Law Found – The High Court dismissed the second appeal at admission stage, upholding concurrent factual findings of both lower courts – Plaintiff failed to prove title and possession – No merit in the appeal – No costs awarded [Para 28].

Motor Vehicles Act – Liability of Registered Owner – No Transfer of Ownership – Tribunal directed insurer to pay compensation and permitted recovery from registered owner and rider – Appellant claimed vehicle was sold before accident and relied on an indemnity bond – Held: Under Section 2(30), person in whose name vehicle stands registered is deemed owner – No official transfer under Section 50 proved – Tribunal’s direction upheld [Paras 5, 10–12].

Insurance – Recovery Rights – Rider without Valid Driving Licence – Tribunal correctly allowed the insurer to recover compensation from registered owner and driver due to policy violation – Indemnity bond claimed by appellant not produced before tribunal – No interference warranted [Paras 7, 13–14].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Registered owner remains liable for recovery – Liberty granted to recover the amount from alleged transferee through legal proceedings [Para 14].

Civil Writ - Service Law – Recruitment – Minimum Qualifying Speed in Shorthand Test – Rule 10 of 1986 Rules – Petition Dismissed - Petitioner applied for Stenographer Grade-III post under PH category, secured 121.142 marks including shorthand, speed and efficiency tests – Failed to meet mandatory speed of 70 WPM in Hindi shorthand test (secured only 50.167 WPM) – Held: Mere aggregate marks irrelevant without meeting mandatory qualification—Petition dismissed [Paras 2-9, 13].

Interpretation of Statutes – Literal Rule – Mandatory Requirement Cannot Be Diluted – Rule 10 Interpretation – The petitioner argued for reading 'must have passed' as 'might have passed'—Court rejected contention citing clear and unambiguous language of Rule 10 prescribing passing speed of 70 WPM – Applied literal interpretation principle emphasizing legislative intent and statutory compliance—Held: No scope for dilution of mandatory eligibility criteria [Paras 10, 14-15].

Recruitment Process – Vacancy Does Not Confer Right to Appointment – Even if category vacancies remained unfilled, absence of requisite qualification disqualifies petitioner – Held: Petitioner has no vested right to appointment merely because of vacant posts or higher marks – Eligibility conditions sacrosanct [Paras 16].

Binding Precedents – Supreme Court Guidelines on Statutory Interpretation – Court relied on Raghunath Rai Bareja case affirming that clear statutory mandates must be implemented without judicial alteration—Held: Courts cannot rewrite statutes under guise of interpretation [Para 15].

Decision – Eligibility Deficiency Fatal – Petition Rejected – Petitioner’s failure to achieve minimum shorthand speed rendered him ineligible—Petition dismissed, no interference warranted under writ jurisdiction [Paras 17-18].