Jurisdiction of Sessions Court – Power to Order Re-Investigation – Distinction between Further Investigation and Re-Investigation – The petitioner-hospital challenged the order passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-II/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Buddha Nagar, directing re-investigation into its role while granting anticipatory bail to an accused doctor – Held: The Sessions Court has no power to direct re-investigation – Re-investigation can only be ordered by constitutional courts, namely the High Court or Supreme Court – Further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is distinct from re-investigation and can only be conducted under appropriate circumstances – The impugned direction for re-investigation was beyond the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and is liable to be set aside [Paras 15-21].

Scope of Anticipatory Bail Proceedings – Limited Jurisdiction of Sessions Court – The anticipatory bail application was filed by a co-accused doctor, and there was no occasion for the Sessions Court to pass directions regarding re-investigation of the petitioner-hospital – Held: The Sessions Court while dealing with an anticipatory bail application cannot pass orders beyond granting or rejecting bail – Any observation made regarding the role of the petitioner-hospital was uncalled for and beyond jurisdiction – The order directing re-investigation against the hospital is quashed [Paras 20-21].

Judicial Precedents – Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762 – The Supreme Court has clearly distinguished between further investigation and re-investigation – Re-investigation requires explicit court orders with proper reasoning and is rarely permitted – Sessions Court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering re-investigation without legal authority [Paras 7, 15-16].

Decision:   The order of the Sessions Court directing re-investigation into the role of the petitioner-hospital is quashed as being beyond jurisdiction. The petitioner-hospital shall not be subjected to re-investigation unless ordered by a constitutional court.
 

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Ancestral Property – Plaintiff's Right Established – The plaintiff sought partition of joint family property, claiming a 1/3rd share – Defendants contended that the plaintiff had relinquished her rights through an unregistered relinquishment deed – The Trial Court held that the plaintiff had not relinquished her rights and decreed the suit – The First Appellate Court upheld the decision – Held: The plaintiff was entitled to partition and a 1/3rd share in the property [Paras 6, 18-20].

Bona Fide Purchaser – No Protection When Seller Lacks Absolute Title – Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 purchased the property from Defendant No. 3, who had acquired it through a sale deed executed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 – The Court held that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 could only alienate their own shares and could not transfer the plaintiff’s undivided share – Held: The purchasers did not acquire a valid title over the plaintiff’s share [Paras 9, 20].

Scope of Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Dismissal at Admission Stage – The appellants challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts – The Court emphasized that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only if it involves a substantial question of law – Held: Since no substantial question of law arose, the second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage [Paras 15-23].

Relinquishment Deed – Absence of Proof – No Bar on Plaintiff’s Rights – The defendants claimed that the plaintiff had relinquished her share through an unregistered relinquishment deed executed at the time of her marriage – The Court found no evidence of such a document and held that the plaintiff retained her rights in the ancestral property – Held: The claim of relinquishment was not proved [Paras 19-20].
 

Civil Procedure – Exercise of Inherent Powers – Section 151 CPC – No Illegality in Trial Court’s Order – The Trial Court allowed the defendant's application under Section 151 CPC for repairing a dilapidated pillar supporting an extended roof – The Court reasoned that failure to undertake such repairs could cause irreparable loss to both parties – Held: The exercise of inherent power under Section 151 CPC was justified as it was in the interest of justice and did not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff [Paras 1-4].

Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – Ensuring Fairness – No Prejudice to Any Party – The Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to oversee the repair work to ensure fairness – The commissioner reported that the repairs were completed in the presence of police personnel – Held: The trial court’s approach was balanced and aimed at preventing any undue advantage to either party [Paras 3-5].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Article 227 – No Manifest Injustice or Perversity – The High Court reiterated that intervention under Article 227 is warranted only in cases of serious dereliction of duty, fundamental violation of justice, or manifest illegality – No such exceptional circumstances were present in this case – Held: No interference was required as the impugned order did not suffer from any illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety [Paras 6-7].

Petition Dismissed – No Grounds for Interference – The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, holding that the Trial Court’s decision was fair, balanced, and did not warrant interference – Urgent certified copies of the judgment were directed to be provided upon compliance with necessary formalities [Paras 6-7].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Single Complaint for Multiple Cheques – Whether Maintainable – The petitioner challenged the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, arguing that separate complaints should have been filed for each of the four dishonoured cheques – Contended that under Section 219 CrPC, no more than three offences can be tried together – Held: A single consolidated demand notice for multiple dishonoured cheques creates a single cause of action—Since the complaint was filed after expiry of the statutory period post-demand notice, only one offence was constituted—Filing a single complaint was legally permissible [Paras 12-14].

Section 138 NI Act – Conditions for Offence Completion – The petitioner argued that dishonour of each cheque constituted a distinct offence – Held: An offence under Section 138 NI Act is completed only when the drawer fails to make payment within 15 days of receiving a legal notice—As a single demand notice was issued for all cheques, only one offence was committed, making a single complaint maintainable [Paras 10-11].

Applicability of Section 219 CrPC – Whether Trial for Multiple Cheques Violates Procedural Law – The petitioner relied on Section 219 CrPC to argue that no more than three offences of similar nature within a year can be tried together – Held: Section 219 CrPC applies when multiple distinct offences exist—However, when a single cause of action arises due to a common legal notice, it constitutes a single offence under Section 138 NI Act—Provision of Section 219 CrPC not attracted [Paras 15-16].

Precedents – Consistent Judicial View on Consolidated Complaints – Court referred to judgments from other High Courts supporting the maintainability of a single complaint when a consolidated demand notice is issued – Held: Judicial precedents affirm that if multiple cheques are dishonoured but a single demand notice is issued, only one cause of action arises—Petitioner's reliance on Vani Agro Enterprises vs. State of Gujarat was misplaced as it involved consolidation of separate complaints rather than maintainability of a single complaint [Paras 14-15].

Final Decision – Petition dismissed – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act upheld – Interim stay vacated – Trial to proceed before Magistrate as per law [Paras 16-17].
 

Family Law – Right to File Written Statement – Petitioner’s Right Closed by Family Court – The Family Court closed the petitioner’s right to file a written statement due to delay and subsequently dismissed the application seeking recall of the closure order – Held: Family Courts should adopt a liberal approach in matrimonial disputes, rather than applying strict procedural rules applicable in commercial cases – The closing of a party’s right to file a written statement in a family matter has serious personal consequences, and courts must ensure that parties are given reasonable opportunities to present their case [Paras 11-12].

Delay in Filing Written Statement – Justifiable Reasons – The petitioner, a single mother, cited financial difficulties and the medical condition of her daughter as reasons for the delay – WhatsApp conversations between the respondent and their daughter demonstrated the respondent’s knowledge of the medical situation – Held: Delay was not deliberate or willful but due to compelling circumstances – Denial of an opportunity to file the written statement would cause severe prejudice to the petitioner [Paras 7-9, 13].

Precedent on Liberal Approach in Family Disputes – Reference to Komal Gupta v. Amrendra Kumar Gupta – Court relied on prior decisions emphasizing that Family Courts must adopt a flexible approach in family disputes – Held: The Family Court should focus on the merits of the case rather than procedural technicalities – Previous Delhi High Court decisions allowing late filing of written statements in similar situations were followed [Paras 11-12].

Final Decision – Orders of the Family Court dated 29.10.2024 and 15.01.2025 set aside – Petitioner allowed to file written statement within one week – Strict condition imposed that no further adjournments will be granted – Family Court directed to expedite disposal of the divorce petition and discourage unnecessary adjournments – Parties directed to cooperate in expediting the proceedings [Paras 14-16].

Land Acquisition – Encumbrance-Free Possession – Delay Due to Litigation and Administrative Bottlenecks – The NHAI sought court intervention for expeditious possession of acquired land—Respondents cited pending arbitrations, court stays, and non-disbursement of compensation—Held: The encumbrance-free transfer of land must be prioritized—Chief Secretary of Punjab and Director General of Police directed to ensure compliance within two weeks—Failure to comply may result in contempt proceedings [Paras 6-9].

Judicial Oversight – Monitoring of Land Acquisition – Urgency of Project Completion – The Court emphasized the national importance of the project—Directed the NHAI and State authorities to submit periodic progress reports—Non-compliance with prior directions to result in strict action against responsible officers—Next hearing set for 21/03/2025 for compliance review [Paras 8-10].

Police Assistance – Protection of Possession from Disruptions – NHAI reported illegal obstructions post-possession—Held: District administration and police must provide protection to executing agencies—Failure of officials to act promptly to be reported for disciplinary action—Court directed establishment of mobile police units at project sites [Paras 7-9].

Final Decision – Directions issued for urgent resolution of pending acquisition issues—Encumbrance-free possession to be completed within two weeks—Authorities instructed to ensure law enforcement at project sites—Matter listed for compliance review on 21/03/2025 [Paras 10-11].

Civil Writ - Medical Admission – Arbitrary Allotment of Seat – Violation of Merit-Based Selection – The petitioner, who was eligible under the NCC-Female Open Category, was denied admission to the MBBS course despite being higher in merit than the 4th respondent – The University failed to produce any record showing that the seat was properly vacated before allotment to the 4th respondent – Held: The allotment was illegal and in violation of merit-based selection principles [Paras 2-8].
Failure of University to Justify Seat Allocation – No Documentary Evidence Produced – The University claimed that the seat was vacated by a candidate who moved to another college, but no documentary proof was provided despite repeated opportunities – The Court inferred that the candidate had never taken the seat, making the subsequent allotment to the 4th respondent unlawful – Held: The University's failure to justify its actions rendered the seat allotment unsustainable [Paras 6-8].
Award of Compensation – Petitioner Lost Opportunity to Pursue MBBS – The petitioner had since joined a dental course and lost the chance to pursue a medical career due to the University’s arbitrary action – The Court awarded Rs. 7 lakhs in damages and Rs. 25,000 in costs to be paid by the University – Held: Compensation awarded for the irreparable loss suffered by the petitioner [Paras 9].
 

Criminal Law – Rape – POCSO - Appeal against conviction – Conviction Based on Child Witness – Whether Reliable – The appellant was convicted for raping a 4½-year-old girl and sentenced to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life—Held: The minor victim’s testimony was clear, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence—Child witnesses are competent if they understand and respond rationally—Conviction upheld [Paras 10-16].

Medical Evidence – Whether Corroborates Penetrative Sexual Assault – The defence argued that the intact hymen disproved penetration—Held: Explanation 1 to Section 375 IPC clarifies that "vagina" includes labia majora—Medical findings of abrasions and redness on the genital area substantiate the victim’s testimony—Penetrative sexual assault established [Paras 14-17].

Scope of "Penetration" – Definition Under IPC and POCSO Act – The appellant contended that lack of complete penetration negates rape—Held: Even the slightest penetration into the vulva or labia majora constitutes rape—POCSO Act aligns with IPC’s broad definition—Legal position reaffirmed [Paras 18-22].

Modification of Sentence – Whether Life Imprisonment for Natural Life Justified – Trial court imposed life imprisonment until death under Section 376AB IPC—Held: While the offence is grave, a fixed-term rigorous imprisonment of 25 years is sufficient—Sentence reduced from natural life imprisonment to 25 years RI, fine of ₹25,000 maintained [Paras 25-26].

Final Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction confirmed—Sentence reduced to 25 years rigorous imprisonment with ₹25,000 fine—Default of fine to result in two years RI [Paras 26-27].
 

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Cruelty – False Allegations Against In-Laws – Suicide Threats – Divorce Decree Upheld – Wife alleged that her father-in-law outraged her modesty without filing any complaint – She also threatened suicide and made attempts to implicate husband and in-laws – Trial Court held these acts amounted to cruelty – Appellate Court confirmed findings – Second Appeal dismissed as findings based on evidence and not perverse [Paras 3–8].

Family Law – Appellate Jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – Reappreciation of Evidence Not Permissible – Court held that High Court cannot re-evaluate evidence in second appeal unless findings are perverse or a substantial question of law arises – No such perversity or legal error found – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 8].

Conduct of Litigant – Avoidance of Cross-Examination – Indicative of Suppression – Court noted wife avoided cross-examination on suicide attempt and appeared with mehendi on hands to frustrate proceedings – Such conduct considered while affirming Trial Court’s conclusions [Para 7].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Decree of divorce upheld – No substantial question of law or perversity found – Civil application also dismissed as infructuous [Para 9].