Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice – Preliminary Assessment – Whether the Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) Should be Tried as an Adult – Petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), which upheld the Juvenile Justice Board’s (JJB) decision to not try CCL-SAH as an adult – JJB conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) and found that CCL-SAH lacked the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and understand its consequences – Reports relied upon by JJB, including the Preliminary Assessment Report and Social Investigation Report, indicated cognitive immaturity and poor impulse control – Held: JJB’s determination was legally sound and in compliance with Section 15 of the JJ Act – No interference warranted [Paras 31-37].

Age Determination – Reliability of School Records – Whether the Age of CCL-SAH was Correctly Determined – Petitioner questioned the age determination process, citing multiple birth dates in different documents – JJB relied on school records, establishing CCL-SAH’s date of birth as 8th July, 2005, making him a juvenile at the time of the offence – Held: School records are primary evidence for age determination under Section 94 of the JJ Act and Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016 – Petitioner failed to prove any legal infirmity or forgery in school records – Challenge to age determination rejected [Paras 24-30].

Bail under Juvenile Justice Act – Section 12 – Whether Grant of Bail was Justified – JJB granted bail to CCL-SAH, which was upheld by the ASJ – Petitioner argued that the heinous nature of the offence and CCL-SAH’s active role warranted denial of bail – Held: Bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act is mandatory unless the prosecution proves (i) risk of association with criminals, (ii) exposure to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or (iii) that release would defeat the ends of justice – Mere gravity of the offence is not a valid ground for denial of bail – Prosecution failed to establish any of the statutory exceptions – Grant of bail upheld [Paras 38-51].

Right to be Heard – Principles of Natural Justice – Whether Complainant Had a Right to be Heard in Bail Proceedings – Petitioner claimed that the JJB and ASJ violated principles of natural justice by not allowing him to present arguments – Held: JJ Act proceedings are child-centric and not adversarial – No statutory mandate requiring complainant’s hearing at the bail stage – Granting bail is not an order prejudicial to the complainant – Reliance placed on Rajasthan High Court ruling in X v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4209 affirming that complainants have no automatic right to be heard in bail matters under the JJ Act [Paras 52-62].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Whether the ASJ’s Order Suffered from Legal Infirmity – Petitioner sought interference under Section 102 of the JJ Act, arguing that the ASJ mechanically upheld JJB’s findings – Held: Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or procedural irregularities, not reappreciation of evidence – ASJ’s order was well-reasoned and legally sustainable – No jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice found – Petition dismissed [Paras 63-69].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition Dismissed – The High Court upheld the ASJ’s order affirming the JJB’s decisions on age determination, preliminary assessment, and bail – No legal infirmity or procedural irregularity found – JJB to proceed uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations [Paras 70-72].
 

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Transferee Pendente Lite – Not Maintainable – Petitioner purchased suit property during pendency of litigation – Held: Transfer hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act – Executing court should have dismissed the application under Rule 97 CPC at the threshold in view of bar under Rule 102 CPC – Revisional court erred in dismissing the application outright rather than remanding the matter for preliminary determination of res judicata [Paras 22–30, 35–36].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Applicability to Transferee During Suit – Rights Subordinate to Decree – Petitioner’s purchase in 2001 was during pendency of Original Suits No. 33/1991 and 151/1991 – Supreme Court precedents reaffirm that such transfers do not affect rights under decree – Transferee bound by outcome of litigation irrespective of notice – Held: Petitioner cannot resist execution of decree passed in 2003 [Paras 18–20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 115 CPC – Revisional Court Cannot Assume Role of Executing Court – Revisional court should have remanded matter instead of rejecting the execution application – Observed: Supervisory jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly – Revisional court exceeded jurisdiction by adjudicating on merits where trial court had not decided the matter finally [Paras 31–34].

Execution Delay – Directions for Expeditious Disposal – Supreme Court Mandate for Timely Execution – Relying on Periyammal (2025) and Rahul S. Shah (2021), Court reminded executing courts to dispose of execution proceedings within six months – Expressed concern over 10-year pendency of application filed in 2014 – Direction issued to dispose matter within one month [Paras 30, 36–37].

Decision – Orders Set Aside – Matter Remanded to Executing Court – High Court set aside both revisional and trial court orders – Directed executing court to decide application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC afresh in light of law on lis pendens and Order XXI Rule 102 CPC within one month [Para 37].

Criminal Law - Appeals against the conviction - Sections 498-A and 306 IPC  -Cruelty and Harassment – Demand for Dowry – No Specific Evidence – Acquittal – The prosecution alleged that the deceased was harassed and beaten by her husband and mother-in-law for bringing insufficient dowry – Witnesses made general and vague allegations without specific instances of cruelty – Contradictions in prosecution witnesses regarding the demand for dowry and payment of money – No independent evidence corroborating harassment – Held: Mere vague allegations without details of time, place, or nature of cruelty cannot sustain a conviction under Section 498-A IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 13-17, 23-27].

Abetment of Suicide – Essential Ingredients – No Direct Instigation – No Mens Rea – Suicide Not Solely Attributable to Accused – The deceased consumed poison, but there was no evidence of direct or proximate instigation by the accused – No suicide note or specific act compelling the deceased to take the extreme step – Relationship between the deceased and her husband appeared cordial as per evidence – Held: A conviction under Section 306 IPC requires clear instigation or circumstances leaving no alternative but suicide – Mere allegations of discord in matrimonial life do not constitute abetment – Conviction set aside [Paras 18-22, 36-38].

Presumption Under Section 113A of the Evidence Act – Applicability – Requires Proof of Cruelty – No Automatic Presumption – The prosecution argued that since the suicide occurred within seven years of marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act should apply – However, the presumption is discretionary and requires proof of cruelty – Inconsistent statements and lack of medical evidence for alleged injuries of the deceased create doubt – Held: The presumption under Section 113A cannot be invoked in the absence of clear evidence of cruelty – Acquittal granted [Paras 29-33, 39-40].

Judicial Approach in Matrimonial Disputes – General Allegations Against Husband’s Family – Risk of Misuse – Courts must scrutinize allegations carefully – Statements from prosecution witnesses were vague and lacked specific details – Conduct of deceased suggested no ongoing harassment – Witnesses admitted the deceased appeared happy and was willingly visiting her matrimonial home – Held: In matrimonial disputes, courts must guard against false implication by vague allegations – Benefit of doubt given to accused – Conviction set aside [Paras 34-35, 41-44].

Decision: The appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC are set aside. The fine amount is to be refunded after the appeal period expires unless an appeal is filed before the Supreme Court. The accused shall furnish bail bonds as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C., ensuring their presence in case of further proceedings.

Civil Writ - Education – Provisional Selection – Right to Admission – A student was provisionally selected for admission to Class VI but later denied admission due to an age eligibility issue, despite official notices not being specifically addressed to her guardian – Held: The selection process was flawed due to omissions by school authorities – Student should not suffer for administrative lapses – Extraordinary writ jurisdiction exercised to grant admission as a special case [Paras 5-6].

Administrative Lapses – Failure to Verify Eligibility – The school authorities failed to verify the student's date of birth before including her in the selection list – A general notice was issued for corrections, but no individual intimation was given to the guardian – Held: The failure to ensure due diligence cannot be used to deny admission after issuance of a selection notice – Admission directed [Paras 4-6].

Extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction – Judicial Intervention in Administrative Decisions – The court exercised its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to rectify an unfair situation where the student, based on school authorities’ assurances, had already obtained a Transfer Certificate (TC) from her previous school – Held: Courts can intervene in exceptional cases to prevent injustice, without setting a precedent affecting general admission policies [Paras 6-7].

Final Decision – Appeal dismissed – Admission granted to the student in Class VI for the next academic year to prevent further academic loss – No interference with general age eligibility policy, as this case is treated as an exception based on its peculiar facts [Paras 7-8].

Family Law – Divorce Petition – Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act – The wife objected to the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Cuttack, stating that the couple last resided together in June 2017, whereas the husband filed for divorce in February 2019 when he was no longer residing in Cuttack – Held: The plea of lack of jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity – Since the wife raised the objection belatedly, after five years and after recording of evidence had commenced, the objection was deemed waived – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 5-8].

Civil Procedure – Objection to Jurisdiction – Waiver – Section 21 of CPC – The petitioner failed to object to jurisdiction at the initial stage and instead participated in proceedings for five years – Held: An objection to territorial jurisdiction can be waived, expressly or impliedly, by conduct – Raising it after substantial proceedings amounts to an implied waiver – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Precedents – Timing of Jurisdictional Challenge – The Court referred to Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. Jagannath Traders, 2013 (Supp.-1) OLR 73, and G. Ayyappan Pillai v. State of Kerala, 2010 (28) VST 411 (Kerala), to affirm that objections to territorial jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest – Held: Raising such objections belatedly, after trial proceedings have commenced, is impermissible [Paras 6-7].

Final Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Objection to jurisdiction held inconsequential due to delay – Petitioner not precluded from filing a fresh petition in the appropriate forum if required [Paras 8-9].

Civil Law - Specific Relief – Restoration of Possession – Possession Proven – Ownership Irrelevant – Trial Court rightly decreed suit under Section 6 where plaintiffs (widow and children of deceased son) proved possession and illegal dispossession – Held: Title is immaterial under Section 6 – Possession alone suffices, and oral family settlement defence lacked credibility [Paras 5–7, 24–27].

Dispossession – Family Property Dispute – Oral Settlement Not Accepted – Alleged voluntary handover of possession by plaintiff pursuant to oral settlement held improbable – Court observed that history of prolonged litigation between parties rendered such claim untenable – Oral version unsupported by written proof or actions (e.g. appeal withdrawal) [Paras 17–25].

Date of Dispossession – Precise Date Not Fatal – Suit Within Limitation – Plaintiff’s slight discrepancy in date (August vs. September 2021) immaterial as suit was filed within 6 months – Held: Substantial compliance with Section 6(2); technical objections rejected [Paras 15, 26].

Jurisdiction – Limited Interference in Revision – No Jurisdictional Error – Held: Trial Court applied correct legal principles, appreciated evidence properly – No perversity or jurisdictional infirmity found – Revision jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC not attracted [Paras 27–29].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Possession of plaintiffs restored – Trial Court’s decree upheld – No jurisdictional error or perversity found warranting interference under Section 115 CPC [Para 29].
 

Civil Law – Permanent Injunction - Licensee’s Rights – No Vested Interest in Property – The plaintiff was permitted to run a canteen in a government hospital on a license basis – License was revoked due to unhygienic conditions and non-compliance with terms – Held: A license is merely a permission to use property without creating any interest in it – Plaintiff’s claim for injunction is unsustainable after expiration of the license [Paras 13-16].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Effect on Suit – The First Appellate Court held that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the District Collector, who had authority over the hospital property – Held: In cases involving government property, the state must be a party to the suit – Suit dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party [Paras 12, 14].

License vs. Lease – Mere Permission vs. Interest in Property – Distinction between a lease and a license is based on the intention of the parties – License grants only a right to use without ownership rights – Held: As per Associated Hotels India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor (1959 AIR 1262), a licensee cannot claim possessory rights or permanent injunction once the license is revoked [Paras 15-16].

Final Decision – Appeal dismissed – Plaintiff, being a mere licensee, cannot maintain the suit after license revocation – No right to claim permanent injunction against the hospital authorities [Paras 16-17].

Murder Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Identity of Body Unproven – Acquittal Upheld – Trial Court acquitted respondents citing prosecution’s failure to establish identity of the deceased through DNA or credible testimony – Postmortem report relied solely on name mentioned in inquest – No direct evidence linking accused to crime – Acquittal not found perverse [Paras 3–4, 16–17].

Motive – Alleged Illicit Relationship – No Corroborative Proof – Mobile Call Detail Records Not Backed by 65B Certificate – Prosecution relied on CDRs to show frequent communication between accused and deceased’s wife – Court held that without proof of content or Section 65B compliance, motive remained speculative – Relationship as motive not proved beyond doubt [Paras 4, 16].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Presumption of Innocence Reinforced – High Threshold for Interference – Court cited binding precedents (Sharad Goswami, Shera Ram, Kali Ram) to reiterate limited scope in government appeals against acquittal – Interference only justified where trial court’s findings are perverse or wholly untenable – None found here [Paras 8–15].

Reasonable Doubt – Benefit to Accused – Standard Reaffirmed – Court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof – When two views are possible, view favouring accused must prevail – Trial court's view deemed plausible on facts and evidence [Paras 14–15, 23].

Decision: Leave to appeal dismissed – Government appeal rejected – Trial court’s well-reasoned acquittal found sustainable – No perversity or legal error warranting interference [Paras 17–18].
 

Criminal Law – Discharge of Accused - Sanction for Prosecution – Protection Under Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Actions Performed During Official Duty – The accused, a police officer, allegedly used force while enforcing a breath analyzer test – The Court held that though he had no authority to manhandle the complainant, his actions were connected to his official duty – Held: Since the alleged acts were not entirely unrelated to the discharge of duty, prior sanction under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. was mandatory before prosecution [Paras 8-9].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Lack of Sanction Renders Prosecution Invalid – The Court observed that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the case without prior sanction from the competent authority – Held: In the absence of such sanction, the entire prosecution was vitiated, and the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed [Para 10].

Scope of Official Duty – Excessive Use of Force Does Not Automatically Exclude Protection Under Section 197 Cr.P.C. – The Court noted that the petitioner had the legal authority to arrest the complainant for refusing a breath analyzer test – Any alleged excess in force used during this process did not take the act completely outside the scope of official duty – Held: The prosecution required prior sanction as the act was not entirely in personal capacity [Paras 7-8].

Final Decision – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Petition Allowed – The Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.1368/2015 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal [Para 10].