Criminal Law - Murder – Appeal against conviction - Circumstantial Evidence – Double Homicide of Couple – Acquittal Granted - Accused convicted of killing a man (Sharafat) and a woman (Soni) due to alleged illicit relationship – High Court found prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Alleged eyewitnesses turned hostile; motive insufficient – Held: Prosecution case not established, benefit of doubt given [Paras 1–5, 23–29, 44–45].

Eyewitness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – No Corroboration - Key witnesses including the informant and others initially supported prosecution but turned hostile after de novo trial ordered on framing of additional charges – Court held that testimony after contradiction lacks credibility without corroborative support – No reliance could be placed on their statements [Paras 22–27, 33–34].

Post-Mortem Findings – Cause of Death Not Sufficiently Linked – Independent Medical Evidence Inconclusive - Though injuries and cause of death (asphyxia and hemorrhage) were established, no direct nexus with accused proved – Court held medical evidence alone insufficient in absence of cogent eyewitness account [Paras 14–17, 30–32].

Investigation – Defective and One-Sided – Recovery and Arrest Doubtful – Police failed to provide independent witnesses for recovery; procedural irregularities noted in recording statements and recovery memos – Held: Investigation tainted with doubt, cannot form sole basis of conviction [Paras 18–21].

Decision – All Appeals Allowed – Convictions Set Aside – Accused Ibrahim, Sannaur, Mussarat and others acquitted of charges under Sections 147, 302 read with 149 IPC – Bail bonds cancelled; fine amounts directed to be refunded [Paras 44–45].
 

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes – Delay in Raising Dispute – Reinstatement Set Aside – Compensation Granted – Labour Court awarded reinstatement with continuity and back wages after delay of 13 years in reference – Held: Though termination violated Section 25(F), unexplained inordinate delay in raising the dispute cannot be ignored – Labour Court should have granted monetary compensation instead – Reinstatement order modified to lump sum compensation [Paras 1-13].

Labour Remedy – No Limitation under Section 10 – Delay Still Material – Even though no statutory limitation applies for raising an industrial dispute, unexplained delay must be considered during adjudication – Courts cannot ignore the prejudice caused to the employer by prolonged delay in seeking remedy [Paras 6-8].

Reinstatement – Temporary Employees – No Right to Post – Workmen were not appointed against permanent posts – Held: Reinstatement cannot be ordered after 19 years when no vacancy exists and workmen held no statutory right to reinstatement – Replaced with compensation [Paras 11-12].

Compensation – Quantum Based on Years of Service – Benchmark of ₹50,000 per Year Applied – Court followed precedents and awarded ₹50,000 per completed year of service to workmen – Directed compensation to be paid within 8 weeks, failing which 8% interest per annum shall apply [Paras 14-15].

*Decision – Reinstatement Orders Modified – Compensation Directed – Reinstatement and back wages set aside – Workmen awarded compensation between ₹1,00,000 to ₹3,00,000 depending on service duration – Payment to be made within 8 weeks with 8% p.a. interest on delay [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Criminal Proceedings in Matrimonial Disputes – General Omnibus Allegations – Proceedings Quashed in Part – Supreme Court precedents reiterated that vague, sweeping allegations lacking specifics against distant relatives cannot sustain criminal charges – FIR and charge sheet quashed against Petitioner No.4 (a distant relative) for lack of necessary ingredients under Sections 504 and 506 IPC – Proceedings to continue against husband (Petitioner No.1) and sister-in-law (Petitioner No.3) based on detailed factual narrative [Paras 22–27, 30–33, 37].

Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process Prevention – Petition Partially Allowed – High Court invoked its inherent powers to prevent abuse of judicial process – Emphasized that courts should not allow criminal trials to continue on vague and unsubstantiated claims, particularly where specific criminal intent or intimidation is not alleged or evident [Paras 7–21, 26–28].

Role of Trial Court – Appreciation of Evidence – Left Open – Observed that once the charge sheet is filed, the trial court should be allowed to consider discharge under Section 227 CrPC based on full materials—High Court limited its scrutiny to maintainability of proceedings qua each petitioner [Paras 35–36].

Final Decision – FIR Quashed as Against Petitioner No.4 – Proceedings Against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 to Continue – Petition partly allowed – No opinion expressed on merits of pending trial [Paras 37–39].

Criminal Law - Sections 353 and 504 IPC - Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Allegations Vague and Non-Specific – FIR and Charge Sheet Quashed - FIR was registered against the petitioner for allegedly abusing and attempting to assault police officials while being apprehended in connection with another case – Complaint contained vague and generalized accusations without specifying the abusive words used or the nature of the assault – No injuries alleged and no forceful resistance proved – Held: Mere abusive language does not fulfill the ingredients of Sections 353 and 504 IPC – Entire proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice [Paras 2-7].

Decision: Petition allowed – Entire proceedings in C.C. No.1199/2021 arising from Cr. No.103/2020 of Channapatna East Police Station quashed – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of.

Criminal Law - Civil Dispute – Not Criminal – Petition for FIR Quashed – No Case for Cheating - Petitioner sought action against uncles who allegedly sold property in Solan despite prior relinquishment in family settlement – Court found the dispute to be civil in nature, not amounting to criminal fraud or misrepresentation – Held: No ingredients of Section 415 IPC made out [Paras 3, 17, 19–20].

Unregistered Family Settlement – Inadmissible in Law – No Evidentiary Value - Agreement dated 23.09.1987 was unregistered and never acted upon by mutation in revenue records – Court held unregistered document inadmissible under Section 49 of Registration Act and cannot be basis for asserting criminal intent [Paras 14–16].

Jurisdiction – Section 482 CrPC After Rejection in Revision – Permissible in Exceptional Cases Only - Petition filed after dismissal of revision petition – Court reiterated inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC must be sparingly used – No miscarriage of justice found to warrant interference [Paras 8–13].

Fraud Allegation – Co-owner Sale Not Cheating – Only Purchaser Can Complain - Following Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 31, Court held that sale of joint property by co-owner without title does not constitute fraud against other co-owners – Complaint, if any, lies with the purchaser [Para 17].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Civil Remedy Available - High Court upheld orders of Trial Court and Revisional Court – Directed complainant to pursue civil suit if aggrieved – No direction for FIR or criminal proceedings [Paras 19–21].

Civil Writ - Slum Rehabilitation Scheme – Challenge to Declaration of Land as Slum Area – Absence of Title – Declaration Upheld – Petitioners claimed tribal status and ownership over land declared as slum area in 2016 – Relied on decades-old revenue records and Village Specimen No. 2 – Held: No valid document of title or order of allotment produced – Mere entries in revenue records insufficient to establish ownership – AGRC rightly held Petitioners as unauthorized occupants [Paras 34-49, 50-51].

Delay in Challenge – Eight-Year Delay – Slum Scheme Substantially Progressed – No Interference Warranted – Notification declaring slum area issued in 2016 – Petitioners approached Court and AGRC in 2024 – Meanwhile, 2255 out of 2313 slum structures demolished – Held: Delay defeats equity – Slum scheme too advanced to halt – Reliance placed on Apex Court decision in Mansur Ali Farida Irshad Ali [Paras 57-60].

Scope of Section 3C – Declaration of Slum Area Without Prior Declaration Under Section 4 – Legally

Permissible – Petitioners argued absence of declaration under Section 4 invalidated subsequent steps – Held: Section 3C is independent and not dependent on Section 4 – Supported by precedent in Santosh Tukaram Patil – AGRC decision sustained [Paras 52-53].

Implementation on Gairan Land – Mutation in Government Name – Slum Scheme Valid – Petitioners claimed land was Gairan and not legally available for redevelopment – Held: Mutation Entry No. 4598 records land in Government name – Gairan status no longer applicable – Notification and scheme valid – Cited Santosh Madhukar Bhondve and Jagpal Singh cases distinguished [Paras 54-56].

Eviction Proceedings – Validity of Eviction Orders under Sections 33 and 38 – Confirmed – Petitioners contended eviction orders violated their rights as alleged owners – Held: No ownership proved – Orders passed after due process and rightly upheld by AGRC – No interference required [Paras 61-64].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Implementation of Slum Scheme Not to Be Halted – Court finds no merit in Petitioners’ claim of ownership or challenge to slum declaration – Petitioners entitled to rehab tenements if eligible – Scheme implementation must proceed for benefit of majority slum dwellers [Para 65].

Civil Writ - Teacher Recruitment – Validity of Selection Advertisement – Supreme Court Binding Directions – Relief Denied - Petitioners sought a direction to commence the recruitment process as per the Advertisement dated 07.12.2012 – Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak (2018) had already moulded relief by permitting the State to issue a fresh advertisement for remaining vacancies, thereby rendering the continuation of the 07.12.2012 advertisement untenable – Held: Petitioners’ prayer directly contravenes Supreme Court directions and is rejected [Paras 4, 6-9].

Re-Evaluation of OMR Sheets – Allegation of Malpractice in TET 2011 – Barred by Final Judgment – Petitioners prayed for re-evaluation of OMR sheets and cancellation of candidature of those using whitener – Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak upheld the appointments made, and rejected reopening settled issues – Held: Prayers barred and not maintainable [Paras 5, 10].

Frivolous Litigation – Imposition of Cost – Petitions Held to be Luxury Litigation – Court observed that despite knowing the finality of the Supreme Court judgment, petitioners filed repetitive and baseless writs wasting judicial time – Held: All 6402 petitioners to pay Rs. 100 each as cost to High Court Bar Association, Allahabad, with compliance directed through deponents/pairokars [Paras 11-14].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – All prayers found contrary to binding precedent and settled law – All writ petitions dismissed with cost [Para 11].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Ancestral Property -  Daughters and Their Heirs Entitled to Share – Ancestral Property – Decree Affirmed - Trial court held that plaintiffs (daughters and heirs of Late Sayanna) were entitled to 1/6th share in the ancestral property despite prior alienation to defendant – High Court upheld decree, applying amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act giving coparcenary rights to daughters [Paras 8–11, 17–18].

Applicability of 2005 Amendment – Retrospective Benefit to Daughters – Vineeta Sharma Case Applied - Despite daughter Yadamma predeceasing father Sayanna, Court held that her children (plaintiffs) were entitled to share under amended law—Alienation in 2008 not protected as it was post-2005 amendment—Sale without daughters' consent invalid for their share [Paras 13, 17–18].

Mutation and Possession – Not Conclusive of Title – No Registered Partition Proven - Appellant argued partition and mutation among male heirs occurred in 1989—Court held mere revenue mutation or oral arrangement cannot override inheritance rights without registered partition deed—Constructive possession held in favour of all Class-I heirs [Paras 6–7, 18].

Court Fee – Section 34(2) – Constructive Possession Sufficient – Objection Overruled - Though appellant argued plaintiffs not in possession and court fee insufficient, Court held that in cases of joint family property, co-owners are deemed in constructive possession—Court fee paid correctly [Paras 9, 12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Decree for Partition and Allotment of 1/6th Share Each to Plaintiffs and Legal Heirs Affirmed – Sale in Favour of Defendant No.6 Not Binding Beyond Vendor's Share – No Costs [Para 19].
 

Ex-Parte Injunction – Delay in Seeking Relief – Non-Commercial Suit – Interim Relief Denied – Plaintiff filed suit nearly two years after accepting defendants’ resignation and receiving their clarificatory responses – Court held that such delay defeated claim for urgent, ex-parte relief – Trial Court rightly observed no exceptional urgency warranting ex-parte injunction – Held: Discretion exercised by Trial Court is proper; no perversity found to warrant appellate interference [Paras 12–14.2].

Appointment of Receiver and Commissioner – Ex-Parte Relief – Balance of Convenience – Rejected – Trial Court refused ex-parte appointment of receiver and commissioner, noting plaintiff’s delay and absence of urgent risk of destruction of evidence – Liberty granted to seek such reliefs after serving notice to defendants – Held: Proper exercise of discretion; no exceptional circumstance shown – Appellate Court declined interference under Order 43 and Article 227 [Paras 15–16.2].

Scope of Appellate and Supervisory Jurisdiction – Order 43 and Article 227 – Judicial Discipline Reaffirmed – Appellate court reiterated limited scope to interfere with discretionary orders unless patently perverse or arbitrary – Cited precedents like Wander Ltd., Ramakant Choksi, and Sameer Suresh Gupta – Held: Trial Court's decision within bounds of law; no gross failure of justice made out [Paras 11–11.4].

Decision – Appeals and Writ Dismissed – No error, perversity, or arbitrariness found in Trial Court’s discretionary orders refusing ex-parte reliefs – All appeals and writ application dismissed accordingly [Paras 14.2, 16.2].