Motor Vehicles Act – Appeal by Insurance Company – Challenge to award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Grounds of invalid driving licence and non-coverage of deceased labourer under insurance policy – Tribunal after appreciation of evidence held driver possessed valid driving licence – Document relied upon by insurer found doubtful – Photocopy of licence produced by driver accepted – No perversity in finding of Tribunal – Held: Finding regarding valid driving licence justified and does not call for interference [Paras 7–8].

Motor Accident Claim – Death of Labourer Travelling in Tractor-Trolley – Deceased engaged as labourer for unloading potato sacks – Vehicle insured for agricultural purposes – Accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of tractor – Tribunal rightly held negligence proved – Owner’s statement not sufficient to dislodge consistent evidence on record – Finding of rash and negligent driving upheld [Paras 2–3, 17].

Insurance Law – Liability of Insurer – Coverage of Employee/Labourer – Additional premium paid towards legal liability of employee/driver – Deceased travelling in connection with goods transported and not as gratuitous passenger – Labourer held to be employee of owner – Policy not breached as vehicle used for insured agricultural purpose – Insurer liable to indemnify owner – Held: Insurance Company rightly saddled with liability to pay compensation [Paras 9–15.2].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 147 – Third Party Risk – Employee as Third Party – Mere status as third party not sufficient – Liability arises only if covered under statute or terms of policy – In present case, policy extended coverage by charging additional premium – Tribunal correctly applied law – Full Bench decision in Bhav Singh v. Savirani distinguished and applied [Paras 11–15].

Precedent – Distinction – Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan – Tractor in that case used for non-agricultural purpose in breach of policy – Present case involved agricultural use as insured – Ratio not applicable – Appeal devoid of merit [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Award dated 20.10.2011 affirmed – Insurance Company liable to satisfy compensation of Rs.7,75,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum.

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Dowry Death – Interference by Appellate Court – State challenged acquittal of accused under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC – Principles governing appeal against acquittal reiterated – Unless findings are perverse or wholly unreasonable, interference not warranted – Trial court’s view found plausible and supported by evidence – Acquittal upheld [Paras 28–29].

Dowry Death – Section 304-B IPC – Essential Ingredients – Proof of “Soon Before Death” Cruelty – Death of married woman by poisoning within seven years of marriage established – However, prosecution failed to prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment “soon before her death” in connection with demand for dowry – Mere unnatural death insufficient to attract Section 304-B IPC [Paras 20, 23–28].

Presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act – Preconditions – Presumption arises only when prosecution proves cruelty or harassment for dowry demand soon before death – Burden on prosecution to establish live and proximate link between alleged dowry demand and death – In absence of reliable evidence of such nexus, statutory presumption not attracted [Paras 24–26, 28].

Evidence – Interested Witnesses – Improvements and Contradictions – Prosecution relied mainly on parents and relatives of deceased – FIR did not disclose alleged settlement of dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- or payment of Rs.1,00,000/- – Material improvements and inconsistencies between FIR and oral testimony – No independent witness examined to prove dowry demand or cruelty – Trial court justified in discarding prosecution version [Paras 19, 23, 28].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Poisoning – Nature of Death – Medical and CA evidence established death due to organochloro insecticide (Indosulfan) poisoning – However, no evidence that accused administered poison – Charge under Section 302 IPC not framed – Suicide by poisoning falls within “death otherwise than normal circumstances” but does not by itself establish dowry death [Paras 21–22].

Dowry Demand – Demand for Money for Employment – Distinction – Evidence indicated alleged demand of Rs.50,000/- for securing job for husband – Such demand not conclusively proved as dowry demand within meaning of Dowry Prohibition Act – Prosecution failed to establish that alleged demand was part of marriage consideration [Paras 23, 28].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order dated 10.01.2003 acquitting accused of offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 IPC affirmed – Record and proceedings to be remitted to trial court [Paras 28–29].

Criminal Trial – Alteration of Charge – Right to Fair Trial – Section 217 CrPC – Trial Court initially framed charges under Sections 498A and 304 IPC – After closure of prosecution evidence, charges altered to Sections 498A/34 and 304B/34 IPC – No opportunity granted to accused to recall or further cross-examine prosecution witnesses with reference to amended charges – Held: Denial of opportunity under Section 217 CrPC caused serious prejudice and vitiated the trial – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 7–8, 14–21, 23–27].

Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Essential Ingredients – Altered charge introduced offence of dowry death requiring proof of demand for dowry and cruelty or harassment “soon before death” – Evidence originally led and tested only in context of Sections 498A and 304 IPC – Such evidence never subjected to cross-examination on statutory requirements of Section 304B IPC – Held: Conviction under Section 304B IPC cannot stand without compliance of procedural safeguards [Paras 14–15, 23–25].

Criminal Procedure – Sections 216 & 217 CrPC – Mandatory Safeguards – Power of Court to alter or add charges at any stage before judgment is not unfettered – Once charge is materially altered, Court is duty bound to inform parties and afford opportunity to recall or re-examine witnesses – Right under Section 217 CrPC is substantive and flows from principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution – Non-compliance vitiates trial irrespective of whether specific application was made by accused [Paras 16–21, 25–26].

Prejudice to Accused – Common Intention under Section 34 IPC – Addition of Section 34 IPC expanded scope of criminal liability by introducing common intention – Accused deprived of opportunity to test prosecution evidence on applicability of common intention – Held: Serious and manifest prejudice caused to defence [Paras 14–15, 23–24].

Appellate Power – Remand for Fresh Trial – Where trial stands vitiated due to denial of statutory right under Section 217 CrPC, proper course is to set aside conviction and remand matter from stage of alteration of charge – Direction issued to afford full opportunity to recall and cross-examine witnesses and to conclude trial expeditiously [Paras 27–30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 26.02.2003 set aside – Matter remanded to Trial Court from stage of alteration of charge with direction to comply with Section 217 CrPC and conclude trial preferably within six months.

Criminal Law – Recall of Witness – Section 311 Cr.P.C. / Section 348 BNSS – Petitioners sought recall of PW-1 for further cross-examination – Trial court dismissed application holding no sufficient cause for earlier non-cross-examination – PW-1’s testimony earlier closed with remark “Nil. Opportunity given” when accused were unrepresented – Held: Order resulted in gross injustice warranting interference under inherent jurisdiction [Paras 1, 5–6].

Criminal Procedure – Interlocutory Orders – Bar of Revision – Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. / Section 438(2) BNSS – Dismissal of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. ordinarily interlocutory and revision barred – Held: Bar on revision does not oust inherent powers where interlocutory order results in gross injustice – High Court duty-bound to invoke inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice [Para 4].

Fair Trial – Right to Legal Representation – Accused compelled to cross-examine prosecution witness in absence of counsel – Accused being lay persons unable to conduct effective cross-examination – Held: Denial of legal assistance strikes at the core of fair trial and vitiates trial proceedings – In the name of expeditious trial, fairness cannot be sacrificed [Paras 5, 7–8].

Criminal Courts – Duty of Trial Court – Absence of Defence Counsel – Proper Course – Held: Where accused are unrepresented, trial court should appoint amicus curiae or seek legal aid counsel instead of compelling accused to cross-examine – Trial court may also exercise power to put questions to witness to reach truth – Emphasis on purity and fairness of trial [Paras 6, 8].

Inherent Powers – Ends of Justice – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court set aside impugned order refusing recall of witness – Trial court directed to grant fresh opportunity to accused through counsel to cross-examine PW-1 – Directions issued for systemic compliance and circulation among criminal courts to avoid recurrence [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 28.08.2024 set aside – Trial court directed to permit further cross-examination of PW-1 through counsel – Matter remitted for continuation of trial in accordance with law [Paras 9–10].

Real Estate Law – RERA – Delay in Possession – Statutory Interest – Mandatory Obligation – Allottee did not withdraw from project despite delay – Proviso to Section 18(1) of RERA Act mandates that promoter shall pay interest for every month of delay till handing over possession – Obligation is automatic and not contingent upon demand by allottee – Promoter liable to pay interest from committed date of possession till actual physical possession [Paras 22–25].

Private Settlement – Waiver of Statutory Rights – Invalidity – Builder relied upon private settlement stating no delay and waiver of claims – Held that private contract or settlement cannot override statutory rights and obligations created under RERA Act – Any agreement seeking to defeat or circumvent proviso to Section 18(1) is void ab initio – Settlement contrary to statute unenforceable [Paras 31–34, 46–47].

One-Sided / Dotted-Line Agreements – Duress – Public Policy – Cyclostyled settlement drafted by promoter with allottee required to sign on dotted line – “Take it or leave it” situation for allottee who had invested life savings – Such agreements ordinarily executed under compulsion and economic duress – Held to be unfair, one-sided and opposed to public policy – Cannot bind allottee [Paras 26, 29–30, 43–45].

Indian Contract Act – Section 23 – Agreements Defeating Law – Agreement whose object defeats provisions of law is unlawful – Settlement aimed at waiving statutory compensation under RERA defeats legislative mandate – Such agreement void under Section 23 of Contract Act, 1872 [Paras 37–39].

RERA – Object and Purpose – Consumer Protection – RERA Act enacted to ensure accountability, transparency and consumer protection – Rights under Sections 18 and 19 are absolute and unqualified – Promoter cannot contract out of statutory liability by private settlement – Statute prevails over contract [Paras 20, 33–36].

Proceedings under Chapter VIII – Penal Consequences – Failure of promoter to discharge mandatory obligation to pay interest exposes promoter to proceedings under Chapter VIII of RERA Act – Direction of Tribunal to initiate proceedings upheld [Paras 25, 40].

Appellate Interference – Scope under Section 58 RERA – Tribunal correctly appreciated facts and law – No illegality or perversity found – No substantial question warranting interference – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 48–50].

Decision: RERA Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order dated 01.04.2025 passed by U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal affirmed – Allottee entitled to interest at MCLR + 1% for delay – Costs upheld.

Public Servant – Quasi-Judicial Functions – Criminal Prosecution – Protection under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Executive Officer of Municipal Corporation passed an order staying mutation proceedings pending decision of civil title suit – Allegation of collusion and conspiracy in passing stay order – Held: Passing of stay order was in discharge of quasi-judicial functions and squarely protected under Sections 2 and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Criminal prosecution on such basis amounts to abuse of process [Paras 20–27, 30–31].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – FIR and charge-sheet arose solely from judicial/quasi-judicial order passed by petitioner – No specific allegation of extraneous consideration, corruption or acts beyond jurisdiction – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings would be malafide and oppressive – FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed [Paras 27, 31, 33–34].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Non-Application of Mind – Impugned sanction order granting approval to prosecute petitioner found cryptic and non-speaking – Sanctioning authority failed to consider statutory protection available to petitioner under Judges (Protection) Act – Held: Sanction order invalid and unsustainable in law – Consequential proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 28–29, 32].

Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Scope – Meaning of “Judge” – Revenue / Municipal Officers – Executive Officer empowered to pass definitive orders in mutation proceedings falls within wide definition of “Judge” under Section 2 of the Act – Protection extends to acts done or purported to be done in discharge of official or judicial duty – Remedy against erroneous order lies in appeal and not criminal prosecution [Paras 21–25, 30].

Mutation Proceedings – Civil Dispute – Criminal Colour – Dispute essentially related to title and mutation of property already subject matter of civil suit – Mutation effected years prior to petitioner’s posting – Held: Criminal law cannot be invoked to settle property disputes or challenge administrative orders passed in good faith [Paras 12, 20–21, 31].

Sanction – Safeguard to Public Servants – Object of Law – Sanction is not an idle formality – Must reflect independent application of mind and consideration of material – Mechanical sanction vitiates entire prosecution – Reliance placed on Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar and Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta [Paras 29–32].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Application allowed – FIR in Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 238 of 2014, charge-sheet and sanction order dated 28.12.2020 quashed qua the petitioner – All consequential proceedings set aside [Paras 33–34].

Civil Writ - Recruitment Examination – Alleged Paper Leak and Mass Copying – Systemic Malaise – Petitioners sought quashing of entire recruitment process alleging circulation of OMR sheets on social media, identical wrong answers, geographical concentration of toppers and collusion – Held: Mere suspicion, conjecture or post-result dissatisfaction is insufficient to vitiate a recruitment process – Heavy onus lies on petitioners to establish systemic fraud going to the root of the selection [Paras 1, 12, 15].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Process – Limits of Interference – Court reiterated that interference is warranted only when sanctity of examination is compromised at a systemic level rendering segregation of tainted and untainted candidates impossible – Where allegations rest on disputed questions of fact and are examined by a fact-finding inquiry, courts should exercise restraint [Paras 10, 12–13].

Inquiry by Retired High Court Judge – Evidentiary Value – Respondents placed sealed inquiry report prepared by a retired Judge of the High Court – Inquiry exhaustively examined allegations relating to regional concentration, prior poor performance, age of candidates, familial relationships and identical wrong answers – Forensic examination of OMR sheets ruled out common authorship and impersonation – Inquiry report upheld fairness and transparency of examination – Held: Such report deserves due deference in absence of perversity or mala fides [Paras 2, 11, 16].

Objective-Type Examination – Similar Wrong Answers – Evidentiary Appreciation – Allegation that top candidates chose identical incorrect answers – Held: Similarity in wrong answers can arise from common preparation material, elimination techniques and exam stress – In absence of evidence of tampering, communication devices or access to answer keys, such similarity does not establish malpractice [Paras 11(e), 16].

Geographical Concentration of Successful Candidates – Effect – High number of toppers from particular districts alleged to indicate cheating nexus – Inquiry found candidates appeared at different centres with no roll-number or seating proximity – Held: Regional concentration by itself cannot give rise to presumption of collusion or unfair means [Paras 11(a), 16].

Cancellation of Examination – Doctrine of Proportionality – Court relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence to hold that cancellation of an examination is an extreme measure – Where no systemic breach is demonstrated and it is possible to segregate tainted candidates, cancellation would be disproportionate – Facts of Tanvi Sarwal and Sachin Kumar distinguished as involving proven large-scale and organized malpractice [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Recruitment process under Advertisement No. 6 of 2023 upheld – Interim order vacated – Inquiry report accepted and returned – No direction for fresh examination or criminal investigation warranted [Paras 18–21].

Criminal Law – Quashing – Section 528 BNSS – Scope – Applicants sought quashing of charge-sheet and proceedings for offences under Section 69 BNS and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act on plea of consensual relationship and false implication – High Court held that at the stage of consideration under Section 528 BNSS, only prima facie satisfaction is required and disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated – Held: No case made out for quashing [Paras 8–10, 16].

Sexual Offences – Minor Victim – Consent – Legal Position – Victim’s matriculation certificate showed date of birth as 01.01.2008 – Applicant admitted sexual relationship – Held: Consent of a minor is no consent in the eye of law – Sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years squarely attracts penal consequences irrespective of alleged consent [Paras 6, 10, 13].

Section 69 BNS – Sexual Intercourse on False Promise of Marriage – Applicability – Provision introduced under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sexual intercourse induced by deceitful means including false promise of marriage punishable even if not amounting to rape – Allegations and admissions disclosed prima facie offence under Section 69 BNS [Paras 11–14].

Rape – Statutory Rape – Section 63 BNS – Even though charge-sheet not filed for rape, Court observed that sexual intercourse with a girl under 18 years falls within definition of rape irrespective of consent – Prima facie applicability of aggravated penal provisions noted [Para 13].

Age Determination – Evidentiary Value – Matriculation Certificate – Argument that victim was major rejected – Held: Matriculation certificate carries primacy for determination of age at preliminary stage – Claim of “certificate age” without material evidence unsustainable [Para 10].

Admissions by Accused – Evidentiary Relevance – Applicants admitted physical relationship with victim in affidavit – Such admission strengthened prosecution case at threshold and negated plea of false implication at quashing stage [Para 7].

False Promise of Marriage – Distinction – Breach vs. Deceit – Reliance placed on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra – False promise made without intention to marry attracts criminal liability – Allegations indicated promise was false since inception [Para 14].

Section 175(3) BNSS – Complaint Proceedings – Effect of Withdrawal – Earlier complaint withdrawn at pre-cognizance stage after registration of FIR – Revision dismissed as infructuous – Held: Section 233 BNSS (bar against parallel proceedings) not attracted – No illegality in continuation of prosecution [Para 15].

POCSO Act – Prima Facie Case – Continuous sexual exploitation of minor alleged – Investigation resulted in charge-sheet – Held: Serious allegations involving protection of child cannot be scuttled at threshold [Paras 9–10, 16].

Decision: Application dismissed – No ground made out for quashing of charge-sheet, summoning order or criminal proceedings – Trial to proceed in accordance with law [Para 16].

Anticipatory Bail – Cyber Crime – Misuse of Social Media and Digital Identity – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Cyber P.S. Case No.14/2025 involving serious allegations under BNS, 2023 and Information Technology Act, 2000 – Allegations of creation of fake email and Instagram accounts in the name of informant, circulation of obscene photographs, defamatory emails sent to employer, and threats of blackmail – Held: Prima facie materials collected during investigation disclose grave and serious offences – Discretion under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS declined [Paras 2, 6–9, 15].

Consensual Relationship – Limits of Consent – Right to Privacy and Dignity – Defence of consensual extra-marital relationship raised by petitioner – Court held that prior consensual relationship does not confer any right to violate dignity, privacy, or autonomy of the informant – Exploitation of vulnerability under guise of friendship or intimacy impermissible in law [Paras 9–10, 13–14].

Cyber Offences – Prima Facie Evidence from Case Diary – Investigation revealed petitioner’s mobile number used for creation of fake email and Instagram accounts – Obscene photographs sent even after registration of FIR to Vice-Chancellor of informant’s workplace – Independent witness supported allegations of threats, blackmail, and demand of Rs.25,00,000/- – Strong prima facie case made out against petitioner [Paras 6–8, 11].

Threats, Blackmail and Obscenity – Seriousness of Allegations – Allegations included threats to circulate obscene material, demand for money or divorce, and attempts to sabotage informant’s employment – WhatsApp chats revealed use of abusive and sexually explicit language – Such conduct held to transcend boundaries of lawful interaction and attract penal consequences [Paras 8, 14].

Anticipatory Bail – Extraordinary Discretion – Principles Governing Exercise – Power under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS is extraordinary and not to be exercised routinely – Court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that pre-arrest bail should not be granted where it may impede investigation in serious and organised offences – Grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances would adversely affect investigation [Paras 12, 15].

Investigation at Crucial Stage – Pre-Arrest Bail Likely to Hamper Probe – Digital evidence, cyber trail, and electronic devices required custodial interrogation – Grant of anticipatory bail would impair effective investigation and unearthing of full conspiracy – Public interest and victim’s rights weighed against petitioner [Paras 12, 15].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application dismissed – Interim protection earlier granted vacated – Court declined to exercise discretion under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS in favour of petitioner.