Criminal Law – FIR Quashing - Second FIR – Maintainability – Violation of Article 20(2) – FIR Quashed – The petitioner challenged the second FIR filed under the Gujarat Land Grabbing Act, arguing that it was based on the same set of allegations as an earlier FIR registered under IPC – The Court held that the registration of a second FIR for the same incident is impermissible and violates Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits double jeopardy – Held: The second FIR is not maintainable and is quashed [Paras 8.1-8.2].

Jurisdiction of Special Court – Land Grabbing Act Cannot Override IPC Proceedings – The respondents argued that the Land Grabbing Act provided a special mechanism and thus warranted a separate FIR – The Court noted that while the Act creates a special court, it does not override the jurisdiction of regular criminal courts for IPC offenses – Held: The existence of special legislation does not justify multiple prosecutions for the same act under different statutes [Paras 10.1-10.2].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Parallel Trials Not Justified – The Court observed that a civil suit and tenancy proceedings regarding the disputed land were already pending – It held that initiating criminal prosecution under the Land Grabbing Act while civil disputes were sub judice would amount to abuse of process – Held: When civil remedies are available, criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment [Paras 8.3].

Legal Precedents – Clubbing of FIRs Mandated – The Court relied on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348, to reaffirm that successive FIRs for the same offense are impermissible – Held: The remedy lies in treating the second FIR as a supplementary complaint rather than a new criminal case [Paras 18].

FIR Quashed – No Further Prosecution – The Court quashed the FIR under the Gujarat Land Grabbing Act and directed that all criminal proceedings based on it be dropped – The petitioner was allowed to raise his defense in the pending civil cases – Held: Criminal proceedings under the second FIR quashed; civil disputes to be decided separately [Paras 22].
 

Ownership Dispute – Sale Deed Executed Before Consent Decree – No Title Passed to Plaintiff – The appellant challenged the sale deed executed by his father, Sher Singh, in favor of defendant No.2 on 30.07.1990, claiming that the land was transferred to him through a consent decree dated 30.08.1991 – The courts below held that since the sale deed predates the consent decree, no ownership rights could pass to the appellant – Held: Sale deed executed before the decree remains valid; appellant cannot claim title based on a later decree [Paras 6-10].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Allegation Not Substantiated – The appellant alleged that the sale deed was fraudulently executed as his father never appeared before the Sub-Registrar – The courts found no credible evidence supporting this claim, and Sher Singh himself had previously challenged the sale deed in a separate suit, which was dismissed – Held: Mere allegations of fraud without documentary proof cannot invalidate a registered sale deed [Paras 11-12].

Limitation – Delay in Challenging Sale Deed – Suit Time-Barred – The sale deed was executed in 1990, but the appellant filed the suit only in 2011, after multiple transfers of ownership – The Court held that the delay of over 20 years made the claim legally unsustainable – Held: The suit is barred by limitation under Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [Paras 13-15].

Counter-Claim of Defendants – Rightful Possession Upheld – Defendant No.6 had filed a counter-claim asserting his legal title and seeking protection from interference – The trial court allowed the counter-claim, which was affirmed by the appellate court – Held: Defendants have valid title and are entitled to peaceful possession; plaintiff has no legal right to challenge [Paras 16-18].

No Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Dismissed – The Court reaffirmed that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only if a substantial question of law arises – Since the findings of the lower courts were based on well-established legal principles and factual appreciation, no interference was warranted – Held: No substantial question of law; appeal dismissed [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, confirming that the appellant had no ownership rights in the suit property and that the sale deed was legally valid – No relief granted.

Service Law – Reservation for BC Category – Requirement of Fresh BC Certificate – Validity of Certificates – Rejection of Candidature Arbitrary – Candidates applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (General Duty) under BC-A/BC-B category – Their candidature was rejected on the ground that caste certificates were issued before 01.04.2023 – Held: No specific cut-off date was prescribed in the advertisement for BC certificate submission – As per Haryana Government instructions, caste certificates remain valid for a lifetime, but certificates including income details (creamy layer status) are valid only till the end of the financial year – The requirement of a "fresh latest certificate" does not imply that a certificate issued before 01.04.2023 becomes invalid – Rejection of candidates based solely on an administrative cut-off date was arbitrary and unjustified – Rejection order quashed – Authorities directed to consider petitioners under the BC category based on Parivar Pehchan Patra verification [Paras 10-12].

Recruitment Process – Change of Rules Midway – CET Qualified Candidates – Violation of Established Selection Norms – Candidates were initially shortlisted based on Common Eligibility Test (CET) results under the BC category – The rejection at a later stage on technical grounds regarding the date of caste certificate amounts to a change in the "rules of the game" after the selection process began – Held: Once a candidate was categorized as BC at the CET stage, authorities could not impose fresh conditions regarding caste certificate submission unless specifically mentioned in the advertisement – Rejection order quashed – Petitioners entitled to be considered under BC category as per CET selection [Paras 20-22].

Use of Parivar Pehchan Patra (PPP) – Verification of Caste Status – Government Bound to Use Official Verification System – The Government had introduced PPP-linked certificates for ease of verification – Advertisement clause 6.5 provided that in the absence of a fresh BC certificate, caste status would be determined from PPP – Held: Since the authorities had access to PPP data, they could verify the caste status of candidates, and rejecting candidates for not submitting a fresh BC certificate was unjustified – The authorities were bound to verify caste details from the official portal if the certificate was not submitted – Respondents directed to verify caste status from PPP and not reject candidates solely for not submitting a fresh certificate [Paras 21-23].

Administrative Discretion – Principles of Reasonableness – Violation of Fair Selection Process – The principle that "rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection process starts" was reiterated – Authorities cannot introduce new conditions after the recruitment process has begun, which were not specified in the initial advertisement – Directions issued to reconsider the petitioners' candidature in the reserved category based on PPP verification – Any rejection must be based on a valid reason, not an arbitrary administrative cut-off date [Paras 24-26].

Decision: The rejection of the petitioners’ candidature based on the non-submission of a fresh BC certificate issued after 01.04.2023 was quashed. The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioners under the BC-A/BC-B category based on their verified caste details in the Parivar Pehchan Patra (PPP). The authorities were further instructed to avoid arbitrary cut-off dates and ensure fairness in the selection process by adhering to established verification mechanisms.

Criminal Writ - Criminal Investigation – Direction for Crime Branch Investigation – Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India – Investigation Ordered – The petitioner alleged fraud and coercion by police officials, stating that despite multiple complaints, no action was taken – The petitioner and his wife were allegedly abducted and subjected to harassment – The Court examined the sequence of events, including alleged police misconduct and threats – Held: Considering the severity of the allegations and the failure of the local police to act, the case was referred to the Crime Branch for investigation [Paras 2-5].

Police Misconduct – Non-Registration of FIR – Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Violation of Legal Procedure – The petitioner had repeatedly approached law enforcement agencies, but the FIR was not registered – The lower court directed registration under BNSS, 2023, but police failed to act – Held: Non-compliance with judicial orders and failure to register FIR constitutes willful disobedience and dereliction of duty by police officers – The matter was directed for departmental inquiry against responsible officers [Paras 6-8].

Fundamental Rights – Illegal Detention and Harassment – Articles 226 & 227 – Compensation Ordered – The petitioner and his wife were allegedly detained and harassed by police under instructions from senior officials – The Court considered the impact of police excesses on the petitioner’s family, including medical complications faced by their minor daughter – Held: State directed to pay interim compensation to the petitioner and ensure psychological counseling for affected family members [Paras 9-11].

Judicial Intervention – High Court’s Power Under Article 226 – Scope and Limitations – The petitioner sought direct intervention by the High Court for relief – The Court reiterated that while the High Court does not interfere in every criminal case, exceptional circumstances warrant such intervention – Held: Given the abuse of power and lack of police action, the High Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to ensure justice [Paras 12-14].

Order of Lower Court – Non-Compliance by Police – Contempt Proceedings Initiated – Despite judicial directions, the police failed to act on the order of the JMFC-II, Bhubaneswar, under Section 175(3) BNSS, 2023 – Held: This amounts to contempt of court – Show-cause notice issued to responsible officers, and matter referred to the State’s Home Department for necessary action [Paras 15-17].
 

Civil Law - Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Section 100 CPC – Limited to Substantial Question of Law – High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless findings are perverse or based on inadmissible evidence – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14-15].

Suit for Declaration and Possession – Registered Sale Deed as Proof of Title – Plaintiff relied on a registered sale deed executed by the first defendant – Execution of the sale deed not denied, but defendant claimed it was a mortgage deed – No evidence to prove mortgage – Defendant failed to challenge the sale deed by seeking its cancellation – Held: Plaintiff successfully proved title and entitlement to possession [Paras 18-22].

Defendant’s Admission – Effect on Title – First defendant admitted executing the sale deed and receiving consideration – Husband of the first defendant was an attesting witness – No steps taken by the defendant to cancel the document – Held: Defendant’s admission supports the plaintiff’s claim of valid sale transaction [Paras 19-21].

Alternative Relief of Possession – When Maintainable – Plaintiff sought declaration of title and injunction but alternatively prayed for possession – Courts below granted recovery of possession – High Court upheld the decision holding that procedural defects should not deny substantive justice – Held: Plaintiff entitled to possession upon proving title [Paras 20-21].

Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Both trial and first appellate courts arrived at consistent findings based on evidence – High Court held that mere re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in a second appeal – Held: No grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings – Appeal dismissed [Paras 22-23].
 

Right to Protest – Regulation by Authorities – Constitutional Safeguards – The petitioners sought permission for a demonstration against alleged temple land encroachment, which was denied citing potential communal disharmony – Held: Right to protest is fundamental but subject to reasonable restrictions – Authorities must handle such requests with fairness and not impose blanket prohibitions without valid reasons [Paras 3-4].

Prohibitory Orders – Section 144 Cr.P.C. – Justification and Procedural Compliance – The District Collector imposed prohibitory orders on public assembly for two days, citing security risks – Held: While public order is a legitimate concern, orders under Section 144 must be exercised cautiously and proportionately – Authorities must explore less restrictive alternatives [Para 4].

Resolution Through Mediation – Alternative Venue for Protest – In the interest of public peace, the Court facilitated a compromise, allowing the protest at Pazhanganatham Junction instead of Thiruparankundram Temple, with police protection and conditions for peaceful assembly – Held: Courts may intervene to balance fundamental rights and public order concerns through alternative solutions [Para 4].

Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of by allowing the protest to take place at Pazhanganatham Junction between 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., with police arrangements and restrictions on use of loudspeakers and slogans. The organizers were directed to video-record the protest and ensure peaceful conduct.
 

Criminal Law – Appeal against dismissal Perjury – Scope of Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Necessity of Clear Evidence – The appellant alleged that the first respondent made false statements regarding her pregnancy and financial transactions in multiple legal proceedings – Held: Contradictions in testimony or rival contentions do not automatically amount to perjury – Falsehood must be glaring and knowingly stated – Courts must be cautious in initiating perjury proceedings to prevent abuse of judicial process [Paras 8-9].

Criminal Contempt – Alleged Fraud on Court – Absence of Admissible Proof – The appellant contended that the first respondent and her counsel concealed facts and misrepresented material facts before the court – Held: The scan report relied upon by the appellant was not admitted in evidence or proved in trial – Perjury proceedings cannot be initiated on unverified documents or contradictory statements unless the falsehood is established beyond doubt [Paras 6-7].

Doctrine of Abuse of Process – Frivolous Litigation – Repeated Allegations Against Opposing Parties and Judicial Officers – The appellant had earlier raised similar allegations against different judges, opposing counsel, and judicial officers – Held: Courts must guard against vengeful litigations that seek to harass the opposite party and legal professionals – Invoking criminal law for settling personal scores amounts to abuse of process [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the trial court’s findings. The court observed that the petition was frivolous and an abuse of process and should have been dismissed with exemplary costs.
 

POCSO Act – Serious Nature of Allegations – Bail Rejected – The petitioner was accused of multiple offenses under the IPC and POCSO Act, including sexual assault, conspiracy, and intimidation – The prosecution argued that the victim had committed suicide under mysterious circumstances, further complicating the case – Held: Given the gravity of allegations and potential impact on trial proceedings, bail was denied [Paras 1-6].

Prior Criminal History – Impact on Bail Consideration – The petitioner was previously involved in multiple criminal cases, including cases registered under Sections 120B, 406, 420, and 498A IPC – The Court considered the petitioner’s past record as a relevant factor in denying bail – Held: Repeat involvement in serious offenses diminishes the credibility of the bail plea [Paras 7-9].

Supreme Court Precedents – Bail Not to be Granted Mid-Trial – The Court relied on X v. State of Rajasthan, SLP (Criminal) No. 13378/2024, where the Supreme Court emphasized that bail should not ordinarily be granted in serious offenses once trial has commenced – Held: Since trial was underway and prosecution witnesses were being examined, bail was not justified [Paras 10-12].

Bail Application Rejected – No Infringement of Speedy Trial Rights – The petitioner argued that he had been incarcerated since 15.06.2024, but the Court noted that trial was proceeding and had not been unduly delayed – Held: The right to a speedy trial had not been violated, and bail was denied at this stage [Paras 13-15].
 

Quashing of FIR – Prima Facie Case Made Out – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 354D, 509, 504, and 506(2) IPC, alleging that the complaint was a counterblast to an earlier case filed by him – The Court observed that the FIR detailed specific allegations, including stalking, obscene gestures, and threats of revenge using occult practices – Held: Since the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense, the Court refused to interfere at this stage and dismissed the petition [Paras 5.1-5.5].

Plea of Counterblast FIR – No Merit – The petitioner contended that the FIR was a retaliatory action due to an earlier complaint filed by him – The Court held that even if there were previous disputes, the allegations in the present case had to be independently examined – Held: Mere existence of prior litigation does not automatically render a subsequent FIR false [Paras 5.2-5.3].

Judicial Precedents on Quashing – FIR Cannot Be Quashed Based on Disputed Facts – The Court referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, which establish that quashing of FIRs should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases – Held: Since the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclosed a cognizable offense, the Court could not quash it at this stage [Paras 5.5-5.6].

Stage of Criminal Proceedings – Court Cannot Interfere Before Trial – The investigation had already resulted in the filing of a charge sheet, and trial proceedings were at an advanced stage – The Court reiterated that interference at this stage would be inappropriate – Held: Petitioner should contest the charges in trial; quashing petition dismissed [Para 6].
Decision: Petition dismissed – The Court refused to quash the FIR, holding that a prima facie case existed, and the petitioner should contest the allegations during trial – No interim relief granted.