Service Law - Petitioner's Alleged Illegal Termination and Subsequent Replacement – Petitioner, a Hindi teacher since 1988, allegedly terminated without due process in 1996 – School Management accused of appointing opposite party No.4 without adhering to natural justice principles – Dispute over notification and acknowledgment of termination notices [Paras 1, 2, 4, 8].

Appellate Authority's Inquiry – Appellate Authority directed Inspector of Schools to investigate termination process – Inspector's reliance on affidavits collected during the appeal considered improper by the court – Adjudication questioned due to lack of impartiality and independent adjudication [Paras 8, 10].

Remittal for Fresh Adjudication – High Court quashes appellate authority's order due to procedural impropriety – Matter remitted for fresh adjudication strictly based on existing records, excluding Inspector's report and affidavits [11, 12].Paras

Allegation of Trespass, Mischief, Assault and Theft – Complainant accused Deo Narayan Sahu and others of trespassing, causing damage, assault, and theft in his shop – Initial statement held all accused responsible for stated offences – Specific involvement of Deo Narayan Sahu questioned. [Para 1]

Cognizance by Magistrate – Cognizance of offences under multiple sections of IPC taken against all accused – Sessions Judge set aside cognizance against Deo Narayan Sahu, citing lack of specific allegations against him and nature of dispute being civil. [Para 2]

Sessions Judge's Order Challenged – Petitioner challenged the order of the Sessions Judge for excluding Deo Narayan Sahu from the accused list – Alleged erroneous exclusion based on material considerations. [Para 3]

Analysis of Groundlessness – Court explained 'groundless' as lacking sufficient prima facie material for presumption of offence – Emphasized need for strong suspicion based on materials at cognizance stage. [Para 5]

Evaluation of Suspicion and Materials – Court noted necessity of founded suspicion on materials presented – Suspicions should not be of a vacillating mind but based on factual ingredients of the alleged offence. [Para 6]

Reinstatement of Cognizance Against Accused – Review of witness statements and inquiry report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. showed specific allegations against Deo Narayan Sahu – Court found no reason for his exclusion by Sessions Judge. [Para 7]

Order of Sessions Judge Overturned – High Court found no legality in Sessions Judge's order – Reinstated the order of cognizance by the Magistrate against Deo Narayan Sahu. [Paras 8-9]

Amendment of Complaint – Prohibition in Criminal Procedure – Held, amendments in criminal complaints, particularly regarding substantial aspects like cheque dates, are not permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code. Cites absence of provisions allowing such amendments. [Para 8-14]

Typographical Error in Complaint – Not a Simple Infirmity – Examines the distinction between simple clerical errors and significant errors in complaints. Asserts that errors in mentioning cheque dates are substantial and not mere typographical mistakes, affecting the very basis of the complaint. [Para 14]

Principles for Permitting Amendments – Cites Supreme Court’s guidelines in S.R. Sukumar case. Emphasizes that amendments can be allowed only for curable infirmities without changing the original nature of the complaint or causing prejudice to the accused. [Para 12-14]

Impugned Orders – Set Aside – Finds the trial court’s decision to permit amendment of the complaint to correct cheque dates as legally unsustainable. Directs reconsideration of the application under Section 142 of the Act, 1881 by the trial court. [Para 15-16]

PETITION ALLOWED – Quashes the trial court’s order allowing amendment of the complaint. Remits the matter for fresh consideration of the application under Section 142 of the Act, 1881. [Para 17]

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellants convicted for the murder of Tuntun whose body was found mutilated on a railway track – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence including "last seen together" and recovery of bloodstained clothes – Trial court’s judgment affirmed by High Court – Appeal challenges credibility of witnesses and reliability of circumstantial evidence.

Last Seen Together – Witness Testimony – Testimonies of key witnesses (PW16, PW17, PW9, and PW25) – Inconsistencies and contradictions in witness statements – One key witness declared hostile – High Court evaluates reliability of "last seen" evidence in absence of corroborating factors [Paras 43-57].

Recovery of Weapon and Bloodstained Clothes – Knife recovered near body not linked to accused – Discrepancies in witness accounts regarding the weapon – Uncertainty over recovery dates and handling of evidence – Lack of forensic clarity on bloodstains matching with the deceased's blood group [Paras 38-62].

Motive – Prosecution's failure to establish motive – Witness (PW15) turned hostile – No corroborative evidence supporting alleged illicit relationship as motive for murder – High Court notes importance of motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence [Paras 21-37].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentences set aside – High Court extends benefit of doubt to both appellants – Orders release of appellants unless required in another case [Para 66].

Defamation – Ad Interim Ex Parte Injunction – Plaintiff, a Senior Advocate and Spokesperson for BJP, seeks removal of defamatory videos and posts from social media platforms – High Court emphasizes balance between Right to Free Speech and Right to Reputation – Cites "Bonnard Principle" for granting interim injunctions in defamation suits, emphasizing caution in pre-trial restrictions [Paras 1-14, 32-34].

Fundamental Rights – Free Speech vs. Right to Reputation – Defendants argue for Right to Free Speech, stating reports were factual and within constitutional rights – Plaintiff asserts harm to reputation due to false depiction and over-sensationalization – High Court acknowledges need to protect individual dignity and reputation [Paras 14-19, 39-44].

Injunction – Balance of Convenience – Court finds irreparable harm to plaintiff if defamatory content remains public – Orders removal of specific videos and posts, directing platforms to make some content private pending trial – Injunction considered necessary to prevent further harm to plaintiff’s reputation [Paras 45-48, 52-53].

Decision: Application for interim injunction allowed – Defendant Nos. 6 to 13 to remove specified content within seven days – Defendant No. 14 to ensure videos are made private – Case to proceed for further pleadings and trial [Paras 49-54].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of Proceedings – High Court considered the application for quashing the criminal proceedings against the applicants under Sections 153 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants were accused of raising objectionable slogans and threatening people in a religious gathering. [Para 2, 3, 13]

Allegations and Investigation – Noted – The FIR and the investigation by the police established prima facie allegations against the applicants. The court observed that the applicants were identified and apprehended at the scene, with eyewitness accounts supporting the FIR's claims. [Para 3, 4, 6, 7]

Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Discussed – The Court delineated the scope of its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, citing precedents from the Supreme Court, emphasizing that it cannot engage in a detailed analysis of evidence at this stage but only assess whether prima facie case for trial exists. [Para 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]

Decision – Application Rejected – The Court, after examination, found that the allegations against the applicants constituted a prima facie case warranting trial and thus, declined to quash the criminal proceedings, stating that the application lacked merit. [Para 13, 14]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Jurisdiction and Legal Procedures – The Allahabad High Court addressed the legality of police action and judicial cognizance in a case involving election-related offences under Sections 171 H and 188 of the Indian Penal Code. The court scrutinized the jurisdictional aspects of FIR registration, charge sheet preparation, and the magistrate's cognizance in the context of the specific legal provisions governing such offences. [Para 6, 14, 16, 28]

Jurisdiction in Election-Related Offences – Held – emphasized that for offences under Sections 171 H and 188 of the IPC, cognizance by the court requires a written complaint from the concerned public servant, not an FIR by the police. The court noted that Section 171 H IPC is non-cognizable and Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. mandates a specific procedure for cognizance, which was not followed in this case. [Para 13-14, 16, 26-27]

Invalidity of Police Investigation and Judicial Cognizance – Determined – examined the procedural lapses in the police investigation and the subsequent judicial cognizance. The court held that the investigation into a non-cognizable offence without a magistrate's order and the magistrate's failure to apply judicial mind while taking cognizance rendered the proceedings invalid. [Para 28-30, 36]

Decision – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed – Impugned charge sheet, cognizance/summoning order, and entire criminal proceedings quashed – Directs compliance of order by trial court – [Paras 38-40]

Civil Procedure – Execution of Decree – Auction of Property – Court dealt with a revision petition challenging the order of the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur, pertaining to the auction sale of land to satisfy a decree for compensation. The land was attached following a partly decreed suit for recovery due to a death caused by the petitioner and others. [Para 1, 2, 4]

Judicial Discretion – Adjournment and Stopping of Sale – The Court referred to Order 21 Rule 69 CPC, emphasizing the judicial discretion in adjourning or stopping a sale, and highlighted the provision allowing a sale to be stopped if the debt and costs are tendered before the auction's conclusion. [Para 8, 10]

Equitable Consideration – Proportionate Liability – The Court noted the petitioner's argument that his liability was not joint or several but proportional as one of the six defendants, and his willingness to deposit the entire decretal amount to stop the auction. [Para 6, 9]

Court Direction – Deposit of Decretal Amount and Costs – The Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to approach the executing court with an application to deposit the decretal amount and costs for stopping the sale. The auction scheduled for 18.03.2024 was ordered to be kept in abeyance until 4.30 pm of the same day, subject to further orders. The petitioner was also warned of additional costs for non-compliance. [Para 11, 12]

Decision – Provisional Relief Granted – The petition was disposed of with directions to approach the executing court, offering the petitioner a provisional relief to prevent the auction by depositing the required amount. [Para 13]

Labour Law - Workmen's Compensation Act – Claim for Compensation Dismissed – The High Court affirmed the decision of the Competent Authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, dismissing the claimant's application for compensation due to lack of evidence proving loss of earning capacity. [Para 1, 6]

Evidence and Proof – Requirement for Claiming Compensation – The claimant failed to provide adequate evidence to establish the extent of loss of earning capacity due to the injury, as required under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The claimant’s continued employment as a laborer despite the injury was noted. [Para 5-6]

Legal Interpretation – Workmen's Compensation Act, Section 4(1)(c)(ii) – Application of Section 4(1)(c)(ii) in cases of non-specified injuries requiring proof of loss of earning capacity. The court elaborated on the necessity of evidence to establish the percentage of loss of earning capacity for claiming compensation. [Para 5]

Judgment – Upholding Competent Authority’s Decision – The High Court upheld the Competent Authority's decision to dismiss the claimant's application for lack of substantial evidence demonstrating a significant loss of earning capacity as per legal requirements. [Para 6]