Service Law – Seniority and Promotion – Delayed Departmental Test – Petitioners challenged restoration of seniority and subsequent promotions of private respondents who cleared departmental test after prescribed probation period—Held: Promotions regularised by Board in 2020; challenge rendered infructuous—Petitioners’ earlier qualification did not override Board’s approval of original seniority [Paras 1–5, 16–20, 33–36].

Probation and Departmental Test – Five-Year Maximum – Violation Ignored Post-Facto – As per Regulations 95 and 96, departmental test must be passed within probation period (max five years)—Private respondents cleared test beyond prescribed time—Yet, original seniority restored and promotions made, later ratified by Board—Held: Though contrary to rules, regularisation by board approval made challenge unsustainable [Paras 14–18, 33–34].

Delay and Laches – Regulation 97(d) – Limitation for Challenging Seniority – Objections to seniority revision not raised within three years as per Regulation 97(d)—Held: Challenge time-barred—Petitioners’ claims dismissed as delayed and already settled by dismissal of similar writ in 2023 [Paras 21–22, 35–36].

Judicial Review – Internal Notes Ignored – File Notings Not Binding – Petitioners relied on file notes recommending correction of seniority based on regulation compliance—Held: Internal file notes are not enforceable unless acted upon—Respondents’ decision to ignore such notes within discretion, particularly post-Board approval [Paras 20, 23–25].

Decision – All four writ petitions dismissed as infructuous—Board’s 2020 resolution approved prior promotions despite rule violation—Challenge to seniority and promotions deemed closed—Liberty granted to seek appellate remedies against 2023 decision if so advised [Paras 36–38].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Conflicting Versions by Minor – FIR Under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act – Petitioner not named in initial FIR, which alleged rape by victim’s father—Later statement changed accusation to petitioner, a neighbourhood barber—Held: Considering conflicting versions of the victim and that petitioner joined investigation, custodial interrogation not required—Bail granted [Paras 1-4, 7-11, 13].

Forensic Evidence – DNA Inconclusive – No Corroboration of Allegation – FSL report found no male DNA on victim’s vaginal swab, smear or clothing—Medical and scientific evidence did not support prosecution’s case—Held: Lack of corroborative forensic evidence weighs in favour of granting anticipatory bail [Para 12].

Child Witness – Inconsistent Statements Under Section 164 CrPC – Impact on Bail – Victim initially accused father in FIR and medical narration—Subsequently implicated petitioner in new complaint—Contradiction in date of alleged incident (2022 winter vs. 02.09.2023)—Held: Discrepancies undermine credibility for pre-trial custody justification [Paras 5, 9-11].

Bail Principles – No Flight Risk – Cooperation with Investigation – Petitioner had already joined investigation—No likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence—Held: Sufficient grounds for protection from arrest, subject to conditions [Para 13].

Decision – Bail application allowed – Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety—Directed not to contact or threaten victim or her family—To cooperate with IO as required [Paras 13-14].

Banking Law – Priority of Secured Creditors – Section 31-B RDB Act – Petitioner bank sought recovery of ₹79.74 crores against defaulting borrower, with mortgaged properties under DRT attachment—Respondent tax department sought to sell same properties for ₹29 lakhs in VAT dues—Held: Section 31-B of RDB Act, inserted in 2016, grants absolute priority to secured creditors over government dues—State’s claim under VAT Act overridden [Paras 3–5, 14–15].

Tax Recovery – State’s First Charge Under VAT Act – Overridden by Central Law – State relied on Section 26 of AP VAT Act granting first charge on dealer’s assets—Court held that Section 31-B (read with Section 34) of RDB Act overrides State legislation—Earlier precedent of Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala (2009) held not applicable due to post-2016 legal change [Paras 6–12, 14].

Statutory Interpretation – Overriding Effect of Central Legislation – Section 34 of RDB Act gives overriding effect to its provisions—Court emphasized that express provision of Section 31-B changes legal position from pre-2016 framework—Held: Central enactment prevails where priority in recovery is concerned [Paras 5, 12–14].

Judicial Precedent – Application of Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala – Not Applicable Post-2016 – Supreme Court’s 2009 ruling had denied banks priority as no first charge existed in law—Held: That judgment not applicable after insertion of Section 31-B by Act 44 of 2016—Present law gives banks priority [Paras 9–12].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Bank’s priority under Section 31-B of RDB Act upheld – State barred from enforcing VAT recovery on attached properties – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous applications closed [Para 15].

Criminal Law - SC/ST Act – Quashing - Caste-Based Assault Allegation – Conviction Set Aside on Compromise – Trial Court convicted appellants under multiple IPC and SC/ST Act provisions—Allegation of caste abuse and assault over a local altercation—Held: Appellants and de facto complainant now residing in same village peacefully—Court accepted voluntary compromise and invoked Section 482 CrPC to set aside conviction [Paras 1–3, 5–11, 14–15].

Criminal Procedure – Power Under Section 482 CrPC – Non-Heinous Private Offences – Reiterating Ramgopal and Ramawatar principles, Court held it can quash even post-conviction proceedings in non-heinous, private disputes to promote harmony—Held: Compromise was not the result of coercion—Discharge justified to maintain social peace [Paras 6–7, 13–14].

Evidentiary Assessment – Injury and Witness Reliability – Doubts Noted – Medical record showed shoulder dislocation without supporting x-ray—Key witnesses were family members—No public or independent witnesses examined despite alleged public assault—Held: Conviction based on weak and interested evidence; compromise is a just resolution [Paras 4–5, 10–11].

Community Harmony – SC/ST Act – Special Statute Not a Bar to Quash – Despite the SC/ST Act being a special statute, the Court held that it does not bar quashing under Section 482 CrPC when conditions of peaceful resolution and non-severity of offence are met—Held: Special law status no hindrance to compromise-based discharge [Para 14].

Decision – Conviction and sentence under Sections 147, 325 IPC r/w 149 and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act set aside – Appellants discharged – Criminal appeal allowed – Connected petition closed [Paras 15–16].

Criminal Law – Quashing 0f FIR - Peaceful Protest – Democratic Dissent – FIR Quashed – Petitioners participated in a non-violent protest against the administrative shift of water distribution meeting venue concerning Jawai Bandh – Held: There was no evidence of violence, incitement, damage to property, or threat to public order – The protest was a legitimate exercise of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(b) – FIR and all consequent proceedings quashed [Paras 2.1–2.4, 6–11, 14].

Unlawful Assembly – Section 143 IPC – No Common Unlawful Object – Held: Mere assembly of persons without violence or intent to overawe the government does not constitute an unlawful assembly – The protest stemmed from livelihood concerns and lacked the criminal object required under Section 141 IPC [Paras 6, 7].

Obstruction in Public Way – Section 283 IPC – Applicability Rejected – Held: The protest was peaceful and any road blockage was incidental and unintentional – Absence of evidence of danger or obstruction with criminal intent – Section 283 not attracted [Para 7].

Mischief to Highway – Section 8B National Highways Act – No Damage Alleged – Held: No injury to highway infrastructure or threat to public safety proved – Provision not attracted in absence of mischief or destruction – FIR quashed [Para 8].

Gun License Suspension – Revocation Ordered – Held: Suspension of petitioner Ajaypal Singh’s gun license was solely on the basis of the FIR now quashed – Absence of any other pending case – Order set aside, license suspension revoked [Paras 16–17].

Decision – Writ Petition and Connected Misc. Petitions Allowed – FIR No.127/2022 quashed for all accused – SHO directed to submit negative final report – Constitutional right to peaceful protest reaffirmed – Justice not limited to those who appear before court; relief extended to all similarly placed persons named in FIR [Paras 11–14].

Criminal Law – Robbery – House Trespass – Threat – Conviction Sustained After 24 Years – Petitioners convicted under Sections 382, 454, and 506 IPC for armed robbery at commission agency office—Appeal dismissed in 2008 and revision pending since—Held: Conviction based on credible and corroborated eyewitness testimony; minor contradictions did not impair reliability—Conviction upheld [Paras 4–14].

Hostile Witness – Partial Support Valid – Evidentiary Value of PW-3 – Though PW-3 turned hostile regarding one co-accused, he corroborated the prosecution version against remaining petitioners—Held: Hostile status does not nullify admissible corroborative evidence supporting conviction [Paras 11, 14].

Delay in Trial – Sentence Modification – Long Pendency as Mitigating Factor – FIR registered in 2001, conviction in 2007, appeal dismissed in 2008, and revision disposed only in 2025—Petitioners already undergone substantial custody—Held: Sentence reduced to period undergone (approx. 9–10 months) with enhanced fine and compensation to complainant [Paras 15–16].

Section 506 IPC – Concurrent Sentencing – Enhancement of Fine – Petitioners directed to pay enhanced fines under all three charges—Out of total fine, ₹20,000 directed to be paid as compensation to complainant under CrPC—Sentences to run concurrently [Paras 15–16].

Decision – Criminal revision petition dismissed on merits – Conviction under Sections 382, 454, and 506 IPC upheld – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Fine enhanced – Compensation awarded to victim – Petition qua Resham Singh abated due to death [Paras 3, 15–16].

Easement by Necessity – Right of Way – Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction – Appeal against concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts, which decreed a mandatory injunction to set out a pathway for the plaintiff through the defendants' property. The court emphasized the essentials of easement by necessity under Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, and upheld the findings of the lower courts that no alternative pathway was available to the plaintiff [Paras 1-20].

Alternative Pathway – Insufficiency – The alternative pathway suggested by the defendants was found insufficient as it did not reach the plaint A schedule property. The court reiterated that an alternative way must be capable of connecting the tenement for its beneficial enjoyment without any interruption [Paras 15-19].

Substantial Question of Law – The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The appeal did not meet the criteria under Section 100 of the C.P.C. for formulation of substantial questions of law [Paras 21-26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The decrees of the lower courts were affirmed, directing the defendants to set out a pathway as per the trial court’s orders. All pending interlocutory applications in the appeal were also dismissed.

Interest for Delayed Payment – Suit Maintainability – The appellant, a PWD contractor, filed a suit seeking interest for delayed payment of a bill amount for work completed. The trial court decreed interest at 18% per annum, which was reversed by the first appellate court. The High Court held that a suit for interest alone is maintainable under Section 3(1) of the Interest Act, 1978, and supported by the decision in Anirudhan v. Government of Kerala [1999 KHC 527] [Paras 1-7].

Accord and Satisfaction – Pleading Requirement – The respondents raised the plea of accord and satisfaction for the first time in the appellate stage. The court held that such a plea must be specifically pleaded in the written statement, and since it was not, it cannot be relied upon to deny the interest claim. The receipt of the final bill amount did not estop the appellant from claiming interest [Paras 12-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The judgment of the first appellate court was set aside, and the decree of the trial court granting interest at 18% per annum for the delayed payment was restored.

Criminal Law – Grievous Hurt – Section 326 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant convicted for grievously assaulting neighbour with a sharp weapon—Trial court held 307 IPC unproved but convicted under 326 IPC—High Court held: Prosecution failed to prove identity of assailant beyond reasonable doubt—Inconsistent testimony, lack of motive, and absence of credible evidence fatal to prosecution—Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1–3, 12–22].

Evidence – Identification in Darkness – No Electricity – Doubtful Recognition – Incident occurred at 8:30 PM in village with no electricity—Key witnesses claimed to identify assailant in moonlight, yet failed to describe clothing—No test identification parade conducted—Held: Identification unreliable in absence of light and confirmed visibility [Paras 5–6, 12–14].

Medical Evidence – Injury Report Deficiencies – No FSL or Hospital Seal – Doctor’s report lacked hospital seal and did not specify nature/age of injuries—Only 3 cm cut wound identified despite alleged use of sharp Bamfok—Clothing and weapon not sent for forensic analysis—Held: Medical evidence not reliable; prosecution failed to corroborate injuries with alleged weapon [Paras 7, 15, 20].

Investigation Lapses – Sketch Map, Witness Omission, Weapon Not Produced – IO failed to include adjacent eyewitnesses in sketch map—Seizure list witnesses disowned contents—Weapon not produced in court or tested—Held: Serious lapses in investigation undermined prosecution case [Paras 5, 11, 18].

Motive – No Provocation or Reason for Assault – Prosecution failed to show motive—No prior enmity—Victim attacked allegedly while relieving himself at night—Held: Lack of motive casts serious doubt on prosecution’s version [Para 18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 326 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bond discharged under Section 437A CrPC [Paras 23–26].