Motor Accident Claim – Compensation for Widow Despite Remarriage – Legal Entitlement Recognized – The Tribunal had denied compensation to the widow of the deceased on the ground of her remarriage with the deceased’s younger brother – The High Court held that remarriage does not disqualify a widow from compensation for the loss suffered due to her husband’s death – Reference made to Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni & Ors., FAO-2917 of 2014 (P&H), which recognized the widow’s right to claim compensation despite remarriage – Held: Widow entitled to compensation along with other dependents [Paras 6, 22].

Enhancement of Compensation – Correct Multiplier Applied – Future Prospects Considered – The Tribunal erroneously applied a multiplier of 8 instead of 17, considering the deceased’s age as 28 years – The High Court applied the correct multiplier of 17 as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 – Future prospects of 50% were added in accordance with Pranay Sethi – Loss of estate, consortium, and funeral expenses were also revised – Held: Compensation enhanced from ₹2,68,000 to ₹19,06,248 with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition [Paras 7, 10, 23-24].

Consortium – Each Dependent Entitled to Separate Award – Following Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, the court recognized spousal, parental, and filial consortium – Compensation of ₹48,000 awarded to the widow (spousal consortium) and ₹48,000 each to the parents (filial consortium) – Held: Consortium to be awarded individually to each claimant, not as a lump sum [Paras 11-12, 19].

Interest on Enhanced Compensation – 9% Per Annum Granted – The Tribunal had awarded interest at 6% per annum – The High Court increased it to 9% per annum, following Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara v. Shyam Singh Varma, 2019 ACJ 3176 – Held: Enhanced compensation payable with 9% interest from the date of claim petition till realization [Para 24].

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The compensation is enhanced to ₹19,06,248, payable with 9% interest per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The widow is held entitled to compensation despite her remarriage, and consortium is awarded individually to each claimant. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within two months.
 

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Statement of Co-Accused – Not Grounds for Quashing at Initial Stage – Petition Dismissed – FIR against petitioner was based on statement of a co-accused regarding illegal liquor transport – Court held that though such statements are inadmissible at trial, they can form basis for initiating investigation – Held: At FIR stage, admissibility of evidence is premature; investigation cannot be stalled merely due to lack of direct evidence [Paras 6–10, 13].
Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Investigation Not to Be Thwarted – High Threshold for Quashing – Citing precedents, Court held that FIR can only be quashed where no cognizable offence is disclosed – Merely being named by co-accused is not sufficient to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 at pre-charge-sheet stage [Paras 11–12].
Evidentiary Relevance – Co-Accused’s Statement as Investigative Clue – Statement of arrested co-accused can be used by police to investigate and trace other suspects – Held: If no material is found, prosecution may drop charges; if charge-sheet is filed without corroboration, petitioners may seek remedy then [Paras 13, 16].
Decision: Petition dismissed – Interim relief vacated – Court declined to quash FIR, holding that investigation based on co-accused’s statement is permissible – Petitioners granted liberty to challenge proceedings if charge-sheet is filed without supporting material [Paras 15–16].
 

Bail - Economic Offenses – Stringent Bail Conditions – Pre-Arrest Bail Denied – Petitioner, a former director of SRS Banquets & Resorts Ltd., sought anticipatory bail in a case involving fraudulent bank loans, fund siphoning, and misrepresentation in financial statements—High Court held: Economic offenses have grave societal impact and require stricter scrutiny—Bail denied as per Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, which mandates restrictive conditions similar to PMLA [Paras 7, 10-12].

Corporate Fraud – Directors’ Liability – Signing of False Financial Statements as Basis for Criminal Culpability – Petitioner contended that he was inducted as a director after the period of alleged fraud and was obligated to sign balance sheets—High Court held: Directors cannot escape liability merely by citing official duties—Signing financial statements containing false particulars attracts liability under Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 [Paras 5, 11].

Precedents on Economic Offenses – Bail Restrictions Applied – High Court relied on P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement and Serious Fraud Investigation Officer v. Nittin Johari to reiterate that anticipatory bail in economic offenses must be granted only in exceptional circumstances—Held: Granting bail would hamper investigation as SFIO needed custodial interrogation [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Bail petition dismissed—Petitioner directed to seek remedy under Section 72(2) BNSS (formerly Section 88 Cr.P.C.) before the Special Court—Interim protection granted earlier revoked—Observations made limited to bail proceedings and not affecting the merits of the trial [Paras 8-10].
 

Arbitration and Conciliation – Maintainability of Arbitration Petition – Settlement Through Conciliation – The Petitioner sought appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate disputes arising from an EPC Agreement with the Respondent – Respondent contended that disputes had already been settled through conciliation meetings held under Clause 26.2 of the Agreement – Court held that once a settlement agreement is reached under conciliation, the disputes are deemed resolved and cannot be referred to arbitration unless the settlement is challenged separately – Held: The settlement reached between parties through conciliation meetings was binding and enforceable under Sections 73 & 74 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and could only be challenged under Section 34 of the Act [Paras 6-10].

Effect of Conciliation on Arbitration – Legal Consequences – The Court examined whether a dispute settled through conciliation could be reopened in arbitration – Held: A settlement agreement reached during conciliation proceedings has the same effect as an arbitral award on agreed terms and is enforceable as such – The Petitioner’s claims regarding financial duress could not be examined under Section 11 of the Act but had to be raised in separate proceedings challenging the settlement – Petition dismissed with liberty to the Petitioner to seek appropriate legal remedies [Paras 8-10].

Contract Interpretation – Conciliation and Arbitration Clauses – Clause 26.2 of the EPC Agreement provided for conciliation before arbitration – The Petitioner contended that conciliation was incomplete due to the absence of a formally appointed conciliator – Court held that Clause 26.2 allowed conciliation to be conducted by mutually agreed officials, and the settlement reached in conciliation meetings was valid – Held: A dispute can proceed to arbitration only if conciliation fails; since a settlement was reached, arbitration was not permissible under Clause 26.3 [Paras 5-7].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope Under Section 11 – The Petitioner alleged coercion and financial duress in reaching the settlement – Court held that allegations of duress require factual determination and cannot be examined in a petition under Section 11 – Such claims must be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Relief denied [Paras 9-11].

Relief Denied – Petition dismissed as the dispute had already been resolved through a binding settlement agreement – The Petitioner was directed to seek recourse under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if it wished to challenge the validity of the settlement [Paras 10-11].

Service Law – Judicial Officers – Discharge from Service – Challenge to Termination – Petitioners, who were appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division) in 2013, were discharged from service under Rule 24(4) of the U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001 – The discharge order was based on a Full Court resolution after an inquiry into an altercation involving probationers during training – Petitioners contended that the order, though couched as simpliciter, was punitive in nature and violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution – Held: The termination, though worded as simpliciter, was based solely on misconduct alleged in an inquiry report, making it punitive in nature – The order was quashed, and reinstatement with consequential benefits was directed [Paras 4, 10, 12, 14, 22, 43, 54].

Probationary Judicial Officers – Scope of Discharge – Lifting the Veil – Petitioners argued that their termination was not based on an overall assessment of suitability but only on a single incident of altercation during training – Inquiry report dated 12.09.2014, which formed the basis of termination, attributed misconduct to the petitioners without affording them an opportunity to be heard – Court applied the doctrine of "lifting the veil" to examine whether misconduct was the foundation of termination – Held: Termination based on misconduct required adherence to principles of natural justice, and mere labeling of an order as "simpliciter discharge" would not suffice where misconduct is the basis [Paras 38, 41, 43, 48, 51].

Natural Justice – Right to Hearing – Article 311(2) of the Constitution – Petitioners contended that they were denied an opportunity to defend themselves before being discharged – Inquiry report was relied upon without furnishing a copy to the petitioners or allowing them to rebut findings – Held: Discharge orders were punitive and violative of Article 311(2), as petitioners were removed on grounds of misconduct without inquiry – Order of discharge set aside, and reinstatement directed with full benefits [Paras 22, 42, 45, 49, 52].

Judicial Officers – Higher Standard of Conduct – Discretion of Full Court – Respondents argued that judicial officers are held to a higher standard of conduct, and even a single incident of misconduct during probation could justify discharge – Full Court has discretion to assess suitability for confirmation – Held: While high standards of conduct are expected, termination must still conform to legal principles, including natural justice – Full Court’s resolution failed to consider overall performance and was based solely on an isolated incident, rendering the termination unsustainable [Paras 29, 31, 32, 55, 56].

Decision – Discharge Orders Quashed – Reinstatement Ordered – Petition allowed – Discharge orders set aside – Petitioners reinstated with all consequential benefits – Held: Misconduct was the foundation of termination, requiring inquiry and due process, which was not followed [Paras 57, 59].

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].
 

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Rebutting Presumption under Section 139 – Proof of Coercion in Issuance of Cheque – Petitioner attempted to introduce a prior complaint alleging that the respondent forcibly obtained the cheque in question – High Court held: While an accused can rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, a self-serving complaint does not constitute admissible evidence under Section 19 of BSA—Complaint cannot be admitted in evidence in favor of its maker [Paras 10-12].

Interlocutory Order – Revision Not Maintainable – Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. / BNSS Equivalent – Trial Court’s refusal to admit additional evidence is an interlocutory order—High Court relied on Vishwa Narayan Goswami v. Ram Rattan Sharma, Sethuraman v. Ratamanickam and M. Koteswara Reddy v. State of A.P., holding that revisions against such orders are barred—Petition dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 5-7].

Admissibility of Additional Evidence – Legal Restrictions under BSA – Under Section 19 of BSA, admissions can be used against the maker but not in their favor, except in specific exceptions—Petitioner’s reliance on his own complaint to prove coercion was impermissible—Held: Admitting inadmissible evidence would lead to procedural delays and is contrary to the BSA framework [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Revision petition dismissed as not maintainable—Trial Court’s refusal to admit additional evidence upheld—Observations confined to the interlocutory nature of the order, not affecting the merits of the main case [Paras 13-14].
 

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Power of the Court – Petitioners sought quashing of the criminal case against them, arguing that the FIR was lodged with malicious intent due to a long-standing enmity – Supreme Court precedent holds that quashing under Section 482 CrPC is permissible only in cases of manifest abuse of process – Court ruled that since there were cross-FIRs from both parties regarding the same incident, the matter involves disputed facts that require trial – Petition dismissed [Paras 2-6].

SC/ST Act – Prima Facie Offense – Maintainability of Charge Sheet – The FIR alleged caste-based abuses and physical assault – Petitioners contended that no offense under the SC/ST Act was made out as there was no public humiliation or caste-based discrimination – Court held that allegations in the FIR prima facie satisfy the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act – Whether the offense is established is a matter of trial – Court refused to interfere [Paras 5-6].

Cross FIRs and Rival Claims – Impact on Quashing – The applicants pointed out that they had also lodged an FIR against the complainant’s faction for assault – Court noted that the existence of rival FIRs indicates that an incident did occur, making it inappropriate to quash proceedings at the pre-trial stage – Held: When two versions of the incident exist, the case must proceed to trial for proper adjudication [Para 5].

Decision – Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – Court held that petitioners could not prove that the proceedings were an abuse of process – However, granted liberty to petitioners to file a discharge application before the trial court – Directed the trial court to decide the discharge application expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law [Paras 6-8].
 

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].