Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Renewal of Driving License – Requirement of Competency Test – The Court deliberated on the legality of Ext.P9 Circular dated 15.10.2009 concerning the renewal of driving licenses under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner challenged the requirement of undergoing a competency test for renewing a driving license that had expired more than a year ago but less than five years. [Para 5-7, 11-13]

Interpretation of Sections 9(3) and 15(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Examined – The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 9(3), which waives the need for a competency test if the application does not exceed five years from the expiry date, and Section 15(4), which mandates a test if the renewal application is made over a year after the expiry. [Para 14-17]

Decision – Upholding of Ext.P9 Circular – The Court upheld the validity of Ext.P9 Circular, agreeing with its alignment with the 2019 amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act. It held that applicants seeking to renew their driving license more than one year after expiry must undergo a competency test. [Para 18-20]

Writ Petition – Dismissal – In view of the legal requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended, the Court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the respondents to proceed with Exts.P6 and P8 show-cause notices in accordance with the law. [Para 20]

FIR for Offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act – Allegations of dowry demands, physical abuse, and mental cruelty by husband and in-laws – FIR lodged in Jabalpur, transferred to Bhopal for investigation, trial pending at Bhopal – Petitioner seeks transfer back to Jabalpur [Paras 1-2, 12].

Mental Cruelty and Jurisdiction – Continuation of mental cruelty in petitioner’s parental home in Jabalpur – Application of law in cases where psychological impact persists – Reliance on judgments of Ruhi Vs. Anees Ahmed and Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Paras 7-10, 13-14].

Legal Interpretation – Section 179 of Cr.P.C. applied – Offence triable where act done or consequence ensues – Physical abuse in matrimonial home, mental cruelty in parental home – Jurisdiction lies with the court in parental home's location [Paras 10, 13-14].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Challenged on grounds of alternative remedy under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. – Held, writ petition maintainable as there was no trial when filed, and police investigation transfer was without jurisdiction [Para 14].

Decision – Writ petition accepted – Transfer of investigation and trial from Bhopal to Jabalpur held legal and appropriate, considering the mental cruelty borne by the petitioner at her parental home in Jabalpur [Paras 15-17].

Incident and Initial Investigation – Incident on 26.07.2007 resulting in the death of three persons – FIR lodged by Shyam Singh (PW-1) – Chargesheet against five accused including appellants – Initially charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 IPC in Case Crime No. 412 of 2007 [Para 1].

Trial Proceedings – Examination of five prosecution witnesses including the eye-witnesses Shyam Singh (PW-1) and Rakesh Kumar (PW-2) – Inconsistent testimonies about the presence of deceased in the tractor or trolley and the presence of eyewitnesses at the scene [Paras 3, 5, 7, 9, 23].

Investigating Officer's Evidence – PW-5, the Investigating Officer, acknowledged not taking statements from certain key witnesses present at the crime scene, and inconsistencies in the recovery of evidence [Paras 13, 26].

Defence Witness – Guddu, allegedly the tractor driver, stated that the eyewitnesses were not present in the tractor trolley, contradicting the prosecution's claim [Para 16].

Acquittal and Reasoning – Appellants acquitted due to unreliable and contradictory testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, discrepancies in the prosecution’s story, and improper handling of evidence. Court found the prosecution unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants [Paras 24-27].

Juvenile Status of Appellants – Appellants Pravesh and Vipin declared juveniles post-conviction and released. Appellant Manoj to be released unless required in another case [Para 28].

Service Law - Promotion Claim to Law Officer – Rejection by Principal Secretary – Petitioner, Sandeep Kumar, working in clerical cadre, challenges the rejection of his promotion to Law Officer under Himachal Pradesh Department of Irrigation and Public Health Legal Assistants (Class-III Non-Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1996 and subsequent amendments. Petitioner sought promotion from 7.9.2009 after completing LLB during service. [Para 1, 3-10]

Requisite Qualification and Service Length – Petitioner argued that he fulfilled the required qualification and had over 13 years of service, exceeding the 10-year service requirement for promotion as per amended R&P Rules. Respondents’ reliance on past judgments to justify rejection based on lack of minimum post-qualification service was contested. [Paras 11-14, 21-22]

Legal Interpretation of Service Length – Supreme Court precedents cited by petitioner to argue that service length should count from the date of acquiring essential qualification, not necessarily post-qualification. Reliance on Government instructions emphasizing promotion based on rules existing at the time of vacancy. [Paras 20-26]

High Court Decision – The court held that the petitioner was eligible for consideration for promotion to Law Officer as of 25.10.2010, the date of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting. Directed respondents to consider his promotion from that date with all benefits and seniority, ruling that service length should include tenure prior to acquiring the LLB degree. [Paras 28-31]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – The petitioner sought to quash the final report in C.C.No.435 of 2019 concerning alleged offenses under IPC sections 420, 423, 465, 468, 471 read with 120(b). The petitioner, a Sub Registrar, was accused of conspiring in the registration of a fraudulent settlement deed. [Para 1, 2]

Duties of Registering Officers – Analysis of Section 52 of the Registration Act, 1908 – The court observed that the Registration Act does not impose a duty on registering officers to verify the title or ownership of properties during registration. The role of the Sub Registrar in verifying document genuineness was scrutinized. [Para 5-6, 7]

Absence of Specific Allegations and Evidence – Held – The Court found no specific allegations or evidence to substantiate the claim of the petitioner's conspiracy with other accused in fabricating documents. The final report against the petitioner was deemed unsustainable for lack of concrete allegations or evidence. [Para 8]

Decision – Quashing of Proceedings Against Petitioner – The Court quashed the final report against the petitioner in C.C.No.435 of 2019, thereby allowing the Criminal Original Petition. The absence of duty to verify documents and lack of specific allegations led to this conclusion. [Para 9]

Referred Cases: None.

NDPS – Appeal against Trial Court's Conviction – N.D.P.S. Act – Conviction under Section 22 for possession of 400 MICROLIT Tablets – High Court finds serious flaws in the investigation and trial process, leading to doubts about the prosecution's version – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside, appellant acquitted. [Paras 7-14]

Fairness of Investigation – Analysis – Held – The investigation process lacked transparency, with discrepancies in FIR and recovery memos. The IO’s knowledge of the charging section before recovery raises doubts about the fairness of the investigation. The concealment of objections raised by the Forensic Lab further adds to the unfairness, violating the principle of a fair trial. [Para 9-10]

Investigative Irregularities – Significance – Emphasized – The concealment of objections by the Forensic Lab and lack of clarity in the investigation process undermine the integrity of the trial. The fairness of investigation and trial is crucial in cases involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. [Para 11]

Decision – Acquittal of the Appellant – The court finds the appeal meritorious due to significant flaws in the investigation and trial process. The conviction and sentence by the Trial Court are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the charges under Section 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. [Para 13-14]

Quashing of FIR  – Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR – FIR lodged by the wife against the husband and other family members for offences under sections 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC read with section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Allegations of harassment for dowry and mental cruelty – Applicants sought quashment of FIR on grounds of vague and general allegations – Supreme Court's ruling cited regarding summoning distant relatives in dowry cases – Court finds specific allegations against each applicant, dismissing argument of vague allegations – Effect of FIR lodged after divorce petition considered – Court holds that lodging of FIR after divorce petition doesn't necessarily imply counter blast, noting earlier allegations made by husband against wife – Dismisses application for quashment of FIR. [Paras 1-13]

Judgment – Dismissal of Quashment Application: The court held that the allegations warrant a trial and do not merit quashing at the preliminary stage, dismissing the application to quash the FIR [Paras 8-13].

Theft and Recovery of Bicycles – Petitioners accused of stealing bicycles – Recovery of stolen bicycles from possession of A.1 and A.2 following their arrest – Identified by the original owners in a Test Identification Parade. [Paras 3, 5, 11-17, 20-21]

Conduct of Test Identification Parade – Petitioners’ contention that Test Identification Parade was not conducted in accordance with the law – Dismissed by the court, citing adequate evidence from witnesses and lack of valid reasons to disbelieve the procedure. [Para 22]

Examination of Witnesses – PW1 to PW6 confirmed theft of their bicycles – PW7 conducted Test Identification Parade – PW9, a mediator, corroborated the prosecution's case – PW10, the investigating officer, testified regarding the recovery of bicycles. [Paras 12-20]

Appellate Decision – Lower courts’ judgments upheld – Petitioners’ revision against the decision of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa in Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2005 dismissed – Petitioners’ conviction under Section 411 IPC confirmed. [Paras 22-24]

The Criminal Revision Case No. 850 of 2009 dismissed, upholding the judgment dated 13.05.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2005. The conviction and sentence of the petitioners under Section 411 IPC confirmed.

Matrimonial Law - Marital Discord – Grant of Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – The High Court granted a decree of divorce in favor of the husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The wife's involvement in multiple criminal cases against the husband and his family, along with her failure to disprove desertion, led the Court to conclude that the marital relationship was irreparably damaged and constituted cruelty. [Para 17-18]

Desertion – Interpretation and Analysis – The Court held that the wife's separation from the husband without reasonable cause and against his will, coupled with her refusal to return to the matrimonial home and continuous litigation, satisfied the legal definition of desertion. The husband's efforts for restitution through notice, contrasted with the wife's litigation stance, further substantiated this finding. [Para 19]

Cruelty – Analysis of Actions and Legal Implications – The Court determined that the wife's actions, including false criminal accusations against the husband and his family, refusal to allow the husband access to their child, and various litigations, amounted to mental cruelty. Such conduct was seen to lower the husband's reputation and caused him anguish, meeting the threshold for cruelty under matrimonial law. [Para 18]

Decision – Dissolution of Marriage – The Court dissolved the marriage solemnized on 09.02.2014, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Jabalpur. [Para 20]