Education Law – Eligibility Criteria for BDS Course – 50% PCB Requirement – Rounding-Off Not Permitted – Appellant had 49.66% marks in Physics, Chemistry, Biology (PCB) in 10+2—Did not meet 50% eligibility criteria under Clause 6 of notification dated 10.06.2016—Family Court and Single Judge held rounding-off impermissible—Appellant’s name struck off from college rolls [Paras 2, 6–7].

Equitable Jurisdiction – Completion of Full Course under Interim Order – Degree Directed to be Conferred – Appellant allowed to continue BDS studies under interim order since 2017—Completed entire course and internship—High Court held: Appellant acted in good faith; no fraud; equity warrants issuance of degree—Writ Court cannot permit technicalities to defeat substantial justice [Paras 5, 8–10, 13].

Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit – Litigant Not to Suffer Due to Court Delay – Court emphasized that delay in final hearing must not prejudice litigants protected by interim orders—Cited binding precedents (Pasupuleti Venkateshwarlu, Milind, Budhia Swain)—Held: Interim protection matured into legitimate expectation of qualification—Degree cannot be denied [Paras 9–12].

Administrative Law – Rigid Application of Rules Disfavored – Proportionality Doctrine Invoked – Court stressed writ jurisdiction must balance fairness over technicality—Doctrine of proportionality used to assess harm from denying degree versus regulatory breach—Held: Larger public interest served by confirming degree of trained dentist [Paras 9–10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned communication and judgment of Single Judge set aside – Respondents directed to confer BDS degree upon appellant within one week – No costs awarded [Paras 13–14].

Service Law - Seniority vs. Qualification – By-Transfer Appointment – Seniority Not Decisive – Although the petitioner (Rajashree A.V) was senior in service, her B.Ed. qualification was in Natural Science, which is not in the same faculty as Sociology – Respondent (Subairabi P.) held B.Ed. in Social Science, which falls under the same faculty as Sociology – Government rightly prioritized relevant qualification over mere seniority [Paras 2-5, 10-12].

Government Authority – Valid Exercise of Power – No Illegality – The Government considered Rule 6.2.28 of Chapter XXXII KER, and found that the respondent met the essential qualification (MA Sociology + B.Ed. in related faculty + SET) – Petitioner lacked B.Ed. in Sociology or related faculty – Government’s preference for respondent was valid and within legal parameters [Paras 10-12].

Binding Nature of Prior Judgment – Inter-Party Adjudication – Challenge Barred – Respondent relied on previous judgment in WP(C) No. 13762/2022 which clarified that equivalency of B.Ed. in Social Science with Sociology is valid – No fresh challenge was made to that ruling – Government’s follow-up order (Ext.P7) was consequential and lawful [Paras 6, 9].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Merit in Challenge – The petition filed by Rajashree A.V was dismissed – The Government’s decision to appoint Subairabi P. as HSST (Sociology) was upheld – Writ petition by Subairabi P. was allowed to the extent of directing approval of her appointment by DEO [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – No Direct Instigation – Framing of Charge Quashed – Petitioner alleged to have borrowed money from the deceased who later committed suicide – Suicide note did not allege harassment, threats, or instigation – No forensic confirmation of authorship of suicide note – Mere issuance of cheques not indicative of abetment – Held: Mere lending of money or failure to repay debt does not constitute instigation under Section 107 IPC, nor does it justify charge under Section 306 IPC – Trial court erred in framing charge in absence of prima facie evidence showing mens rea or proximate causation of suicide.

Mens Rea and Proximity – Requirement for Section 306 IPC – Instigation Must Be Immediate and Intentional – Supreme Court precedents reiterate that for a charge under Section 306 IPC, there must be a clear and proximate instigation leading to suicide – Held: Absent any active or proximate conduct by the accused, charge under Section 306 is unsustainable.

Revision Allowed – Charge Framed Without Prima Facie Evidence – Suicide Note Does Not Indicate Abetment – Petitioner Discharged – No credible allegation of instigation, harassment, or coercion linking petitioner to suicide – Charge under Section 306 IPC quashed – Revision petition allowed and petitioner discharged .

Criminal Law - Discharge Application – Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Prima Facie Involvement – Discharge Denied – Petitioner, a retired Milk Chilling Centre Incharge, sought discharge citing lack of prima facie evidence and delay in filing of charge-sheet post-retirement – Held: Petitioner was not entitled to discharge at this stage since allegations concerning embezzlement of Rs. 1,07,198/- remained inadequately investigated and warranted further probe [Paras 1, 4–5, 9].

Further Investigation – Suo Moto Power of Magistrate Under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Legally Sustainable – Magistrate directed further investigation to clarify whether milk sold in transit was lawfully accounted for and deposited in Government Treasury – Held: Such direction is legally permissible even post-cognizance as per Supreme Court ruling in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat – Article 21 requires fair and complete investigation to uphold justice [Paras 10–12].

Misappropriation and Embezzlement – Transit Sale of Milk and Non-Accounting of Revenue – Further Scrutiny Ordered – Allegation that petitioner sold milk in transit without record or remittance to Treasury prompted further investigation into TR-V deposit records – Held: Trial Court rightly sought further investigation into financial discrepancies affecting public funds [Para 13].

Delay in Investigation and Prosecution – Not Sufficient Ground for Discharge – Public Interest in Full Inquiry – Though charge-sheet was filed after five years of retirement and initial FIR dates back to 2002, the need for full investigation into misuse of public resources overrides concerns of procedural delay – Held: Justice mandates substantive inquiry over expedience [Paras 3, 9].

Decision: Revision Petition Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – Trial Court’s Direction for Further Investigation Upheld – The High Court found no merit in challenge to Trial Court’s order; held that the directive for further probe was within judicial bounds and necessary for arriving at truth – Petition dismissed [Paras 14].

Criminal Law - Rape Conviction – Delay in FIR – Medical and Forensic Contradictions – Conviction Set Aside – The FIR was lodged three days post-incident without satisfactory explanation – Medical evidence and absence of FSL report contradicted the rape allegations – The prosecutrix’s testimony lacked corroborative scientific or physical evidence, undermining the prosecution’s case [Paras 2-5].

Eyewitness and Medical Evidence – Corroboration of Defence – Benefit of Doubt – The only eyewitness and medical reports supported the appellant's version of a mutual physical altercation, not a one-sided sexual assault – The appellant’s injuries were consistent with his narrative, casting doubt on the prosecutrix’s credibility and suggesting false implication [Paras 4-5].

False Implication – Judicial Caution in Rape Allegations – Citing Precedents – The Court emphasized cautious scrutiny in rape cases, acknowledging the possibility of false accusations due to motives such as revenge or extortion – Referred case law emphasized the need for unequivocal evidence before convicting – Held: Evidence did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 5-8].

Criminal Trespass – Section 447 IPC – No Criminal Intent Proved – Acquittal – The prosecution failed to demonstrate unlawful entry with criminal intent by the appellant – The absence of concrete proof negated the essential elements of criminal trespass – The accused was acquitted under Section 447 IPC as well [Para 10].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted – The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment of conviction dated 14.02.1995 was quashed – Appellant acquitted of all charges under Sections 376 and 447 IPC – Bail bonds discharged; compliance with Section 437-A Cr.P.C. directed [Final Para].

Criminal Law - Rape of Minor – Promise of Marriage – Section 376 IPC – Acquittal Upheld – Prosecution alleged that the accused induced a 16-year-old girl into a sexual relationship on false promise of marriage resulting in pregnancy and suicide – Court noted absence of corroborative medical or forensic evidence, including DNA analysis – Oral evidence of complainant found insufficient and riddled with contradictions – Held: Guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt, acquittal sustained [Paras 6.1, 6.2, 13.1–13.3].

Abetment of Suicide – Lack of Proximate Instigation – Section 306 IPC – Accused alleged to have provoked deceased to commit suicide – Court noted no concrete act of incitement or instigation in close proximity to suicide – Absence of direct link between accused’s alleged statements and suicide held fatal to prosecution – Held: Mere refusal to marry does not establish mens rea for abetment – Acquittal justified [Paras 13.4–14].

Criminal Appeal – Scope of Interference with Acquittal – Double Presumption in Favour of Accused – Reaffirmed that appellate court must interfere only if trial court’s view is perverse or unsupported by evidence – Acquittal further reinforces presumption of innocence – Held: Trial court's findings neither perverse nor unreasonable – No justification to overturn acquittal [Paras 10–11, 15–17].

Judicial Precedents – Standard in Acquittal Appeals – Reliance on Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Prakash v. State of Maharashtra – Reiterated that in cases of suicide, direct or indirect incitement must be established through cogent evidence – Court emphasized need for proximity between instigation and act of suicide – Held: In absence of such proximity, benefit of doubt rightly given to accused [Paras 13.6, 14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – Prosecution failed to prove charges under Sections 376, 306, 506(2) IPC – View taken by trial court found plausible and consistent with legal standards – High Court found no compelling ground to interfere – Appeal dismissed, trial court’s acquittal order upheld [Paras 16–18].

Anticipatory Bail – Sections 302, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Role Introduced via Supplementary Statement – No Injury Attributed – Bail Granted – The petitioner, aged 67, was not named in the FIR and was later implicated for allegedly catching the victim’s beard and inciting his co-accused to assault – No injury attributed to the petitioner and he was unarmed – Court held that custodial interrogation was not justified based on the minor role, absence of overt act, and age – Anticipatory bail granted with conditions [Paras 4, 7, 9].

Criminal Procedure – Pre-trial Incarceration – Principle of Least Intrusion – Arrest Not Required – Court emphasized that pre-trial custody should not mimic punishment and that bail jurisprudence requires restraint unless justified – Reopening old neighborhood disputes without substantial evidence against petitioner did not justify arrest – Held: Continued liberty ensured through anticipatory bail [Paras 8-9].

Anticipatory Bail – Conditional Bail – Compliance and Cooperation Mandated – Bail granted subject to compliance with investigation and mandatory disclosure of identification details – The Court noted petitioner must cooperate fully and avoid influencing witnesses – Breach of conditions would entitle prosecution to seek cancellation [Paras 11-17].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Allowed – Given the absence of direct assault, lack of prior criminal record, and the supplementary nature of allegations, anticipatory bail granted with directions to join investigation and comply with conditions – Petition allowed [Paras 9, 20].

Bail - Sections 21-C, 25, 27-A, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - NDPS Act - Grounds of Arrest – Non-supply of Written Grounds – Arrest Held Illegal – Despite police contention, petitioner was not served written grounds of arrest as mandated under Article 22 of the Constitution and Section 47 BNSS – Court relied on Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, and Vihaan Kumar to hold that oral communication or general arrest memo is insufficient – Arrest declared illegal [Paras 8–13, 21–22].

Search and Seizure – Violation of Section 185 BNSS – Search Declared Illegal – Police broke open premises in petitioner’s absence and conducted seizure without recording reasons or notifying Magistrate – Held: Mandatory procedure under Section 185 BNSS was not followed – Recovery declared vitiated due to illegal search [Paras 14–19].

Sanctity of Remand Order – Judicial Order Does Not Cure Illegal Arrest – Remand granted by Magistrate cannot validate an arrest that was void ab initio – Court emphasized maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" – Foundation being void, entire superstructure including remand fails – Remand order quashed [Paras 20–24].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Arrest and Remand Declared Illegal – Petitioner Ordered to Be Released – Court held both the arrest and remand were contrary to law due to non-supply of arrest grounds and illegal search – Ordered immediate release unless required in another case – Directed compliance by jail authorities and Magistrate [Paras 22–27].

Anticipatory Bail – Misleading Advertisement – Health Hazards – Bail Denied – Petitioner marketed a hair oil as a remedy for baldness via social media and held a public camp promoting its use – 71 individuals suffered severe eye irritation and swelling, prompting hospitalization – Held: Promoting unverified products with health risks, without clinical testing, endangers public safety and trust – Bail refused [Paras 1–5, 9].

Consumer Safety – Social Media Influence and Product Liability – Need for Regulation – Court remarked on the increasing impact of internet influencers who exploit societal beauty standards and insecurities to promote untested remedies – Emphasized duty of the State to ensure public health safety and to regulate misleading commercial practices – Held: Unsafe, untested health products must be sternly dealt with [Paras 6–8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Anticipatory bail denied – Product caused physical harm to dozens – State’s obligation to protect public health overrides individual commercial claims [Para 9].