Criminal Law – Discharge of Accused - Sanction for Prosecution – Protection Under Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Actions Performed During Official Duty – The accused, a police officer, allegedly used force while enforcing a breath analyzer test – The Court held that though he had no authority to manhandle the complainant, his actions were connected to his official duty – Held: Since the alleged acts were not entirely unrelated to the discharge of duty, prior sanction under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. was mandatory before prosecution [Paras 8-9].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Lack of Sanction Renders Prosecution Invalid – The Court observed that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the case without prior sanction from the competent authority – Held: In the absence of such sanction, the entire prosecution was vitiated, and the proceedings against the petitioner were quashed [Para 10].

Scope of Official Duty – Excessive Use of Force Does Not Automatically Exclude Protection Under Section 197 Cr.P.C. – The Court noted that the petitioner had the legal authority to arrest the complainant for refusing a breath analyzer test – Any alleged excess in force used during this process did not take the act completely outside the scope of official duty – Held: The prosecution required prior sanction as the act was not entirely in personal capacity [Paras 7-8].

Final Decision – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Petition Allowed – The Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.1368/2015 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Njarakkal [Para 10].
 

Family Law – Divorce Petition – Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act – The wife objected to the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Cuttack, stating that the couple last resided together in June 2017, whereas the husband filed for divorce in February 2019 when he was no longer residing in Cuttack – Held: The plea of lack of jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity – Since the wife raised the objection belatedly, after five years and after recording of evidence had commenced, the objection was deemed waived – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 5-8].

Civil Procedure – Objection to Jurisdiction – Waiver – Section 21 of CPC – The petitioner failed to object to jurisdiction at the initial stage and instead participated in proceedings for five years – Held: An objection to territorial jurisdiction can be waived, expressly or impliedly, by conduct – Raising it after substantial proceedings amounts to an implied waiver – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Precedents – Timing of Jurisdictional Challenge – The Court referred to Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. Jagannath Traders, 2013 (Supp.-1) OLR 73, and G. Ayyappan Pillai v. State of Kerala, 2010 (28) VST 411 (Kerala), to affirm that objections to territorial jurisdiction should be raised at the earliest – Held: Raising such objections belatedly, after trial proceedings have commenced, is impermissible [Paras 6-7].

Final Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Objection to jurisdiction held inconsequential due to delay – Petitioner not precluded from filing a fresh petition in the appropriate forum if required [Paras 8-9].

Civil Law – Permanent Injunction - Licensee’s Rights – No Vested Interest in Property – The plaintiff was permitted to run a canteen in a government hospital on a license basis – License was revoked due to unhygienic conditions and non-compliance with terms – Held: A license is merely a permission to use property without creating any interest in it – Plaintiff’s claim for injunction is unsustainable after expiration of the license [Paras 13-16].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Effect on Suit – The First Appellate Court held that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the District Collector, who had authority over the hospital property – Held: In cases involving government property, the state must be a party to the suit – Suit dismissed for non-joinder of a necessary party [Paras 12, 14].

License vs. Lease – Mere Permission vs. Interest in Property – Distinction between a lease and a license is based on the intention of the parties – License grants only a right to use without ownership rights – Held: As per Associated Hotels India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor (1959 AIR 1262), a licensee cannot claim possessory rights or permanent injunction once the license is revoked [Paras 15-16].

Final Decision – Appeal dismissed – Plaintiff, being a mere licensee, cannot maintain the suit after license revocation – No right to claim permanent injunction against the hospital authorities [Paras 16-17].

Dishonour of Cheque – Scope of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Remanded – The petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 19,00,000 in favour of the respondent, which was dishonoured with the remark "Account Closed" – Legal notice was served, but payment was not made – The Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced her to two years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 – No compensation was awarded to the complainant – The appellate court upheld the conviction and sentence – High Court held that the object of Section 138 is both punitive and compensatory – It emphasized that while imposing a sentence, the court must ensure that the complainant is adequately compensated – Matter remanded to the Trial Court to reconsider the quantum of sentence in light of statutory provisions and judicial precedents [Paras 1-3, 12-18].

Compensatory Aspect – Fine Must Reflect Cheque Amount – Judicial Discretion – Sentence Should Balance Punishment and Compensation – High Court observed that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act allows imposition of a fine up to twice the cheque amount – The primary purpose of the provision is to ensure that the complainant receives the amount due – Courts must adopt a uniform approach in awarding compensation – Trial Courts should impose fines equivalent to at least the cheque amount plus reasonable interest unless specific circumstances dictate otherwise – Remanded matter for fresh hearing on sentencing, directing courts to consider compensatory relief as a priority over punitive measures [Paras 14-17].

Release on Bail – Interim Relief Pending Sentencing – Judicial Directions – Since the petitioner was already in custody, the High Court directed that she be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court – Trial Court directed to pass an order on the quantum of sentence afresh – Further directed the Registrar General to circulate this judgment among all judicial officers under the court’s jurisdiction to ensure consistency in sentencing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [Paras 19-22].
 

Service Law – Judicial Officers – Discharge from Service – Challenge to Termination – Petitioners, who were appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division) in 2013, were discharged from service under Rule 24(4) of the U.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2001 – The discharge order was based on a Full Court resolution after an inquiry into an altercation involving probationers during training – Petitioners contended that the order, though couched as simpliciter, was punitive in nature and violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution – Held: The termination, though worded as simpliciter, was based solely on misconduct alleged in an inquiry report, making it punitive in nature – The order was quashed, and reinstatement with consequential benefits was directed [Paras 4, 10, 12, 14, 22, 43, 54].

Probationary Judicial Officers – Scope of Discharge – Lifting the Veil – Petitioners argued that their termination was not based on an overall assessment of suitability but only on a single incident of altercation during training – Inquiry report dated 12.09.2014, which formed the basis of termination, attributed misconduct to the petitioners without affording them an opportunity to be heard – Court applied the doctrine of "lifting the veil" to examine whether misconduct was the foundation of termination – Held: Termination based on misconduct required adherence to principles of natural justice, and mere labeling of an order as "simpliciter discharge" would not suffice where misconduct is the basis [Paras 38, 41, 43, 48, 51].

Natural Justice – Right to Hearing – Article 311(2) of the Constitution – Petitioners contended that they were denied an opportunity to defend themselves before being discharged – Inquiry report was relied upon without furnishing a copy to the petitioners or allowing them to rebut findings – Held: Discharge orders were punitive and violative of Article 311(2), as petitioners were removed on grounds of misconduct without inquiry – Order of discharge set aside, and reinstatement directed with full benefits [Paras 22, 42, 45, 49, 52].

Judicial Officers – Higher Standard of Conduct – Discretion of Full Court – Respondents argued that judicial officers are held to a higher standard of conduct, and even a single incident of misconduct during probation could justify discharge – Full Court has discretion to assess suitability for confirmation – Held: While high standards of conduct are expected, termination must still conform to legal principles, including natural justice – Full Court’s resolution failed to consider overall performance and was based solely on an isolated incident, rendering the termination unsustainable [Paras 29, 31, 32, 55, 56].

Decision – Discharge Orders Quashed – Reinstatement Ordered – Petition allowed – Discharge orders set aside – Petitioners reinstated with all consequential benefits – Held: Misconduct was the foundation of termination, requiring inquiry and due process, which was not followed [Paras 57, 59].

Civil Writ - Education – Provisional Selection – Right to Admission – A student was provisionally selected for admission to Class VI but later denied admission due to an age eligibility issue, despite official notices not being specifically addressed to her guardian – Held: The selection process was flawed due to omissions by school authorities – Student should not suffer for administrative lapses – Extraordinary writ jurisdiction exercised to grant admission as a special case [Paras 5-6].

Administrative Lapses – Failure to Verify Eligibility – The school authorities failed to verify the student's date of birth before including her in the selection list – A general notice was issued for corrections, but no individual intimation was given to the guardian – Held: The failure to ensure due diligence cannot be used to deny admission after issuance of a selection notice – Admission directed [Paras 4-6].

Extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction – Judicial Intervention in Administrative Decisions – The court exercised its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to rectify an unfair situation where the student, based on school authorities’ assurances, had already obtained a Transfer Certificate (TC) from her previous school – Held: Courts can intervene in exceptional cases to prevent injustice, without setting a precedent affecting general admission policies [Paras 6-7].

Final Decision – Appeal dismissed – Admission granted to the student in Class VI for the next academic year to prevent further academic loss – No interference with general age eligibility policy, as this case is treated as an exception based on its peculiar facts [Paras 7-8].

Murder Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Identity of Body Unproven – Acquittal Upheld – Trial Court acquitted respondents citing prosecution’s failure to establish identity of the deceased through DNA or credible testimony – Postmortem report relied solely on name mentioned in inquest – No direct evidence linking accused to crime – Acquittal not found perverse [Paras 3–4, 16–17].

Motive – Alleged Illicit Relationship – No Corroborative Proof – Mobile Call Detail Records Not Backed by 65B Certificate – Prosecution relied on CDRs to show frequent communication between accused and deceased’s wife – Court held that without proof of content or Section 65B compliance, motive remained speculative – Relationship as motive not proved beyond doubt [Paras 4, 16].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Presumption of Innocence Reinforced – High Threshold for Interference – Court cited binding precedents (Sharad Goswami, Shera Ram, Kali Ram) to reiterate limited scope in government appeals against acquittal – Interference only justified where trial court’s findings are perverse or wholly untenable – None found here [Paras 8–15].

Reasonable Doubt – Benefit to Accused – Standard Reaffirmed – Court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof – When two views are possible, view favouring accused must prevail – Trial court's view deemed plausible on facts and evidence [Paras 14–15, 23].

Decision: Leave to appeal dismissed – Government appeal rejected – Trial court’s well-reasoned acquittal found sustainable – No perversity or legal error warranting interference [Paras 17–18].
 

Civil Law - Specific Relief – Restoration of Possession – Possession Proven – Ownership Irrelevant – Trial Court rightly decreed suit under Section 6 where plaintiffs (widow and children of deceased son) proved possession and illegal dispossession – Held: Title is immaterial under Section 6 – Possession alone suffices, and oral family settlement defence lacked credibility [Paras 5–7, 24–27].

Dispossession – Family Property Dispute – Oral Settlement Not Accepted – Alleged voluntary handover of possession by plaintiff pursuant to oral settlement held improbable – Court observed that history of prolonged litigation between parties rendered such claim untenable – Oral version unsupported by written proof or actions (e.g. appeal withdrawal) [Paras 17–25].

Date of Dispossession – Precise Date Not Fatal – Suit Within Limitation – Plaintiff’s slight discrepancy in date (August vs. September 2021) immaterial as suit was filed within 6 months – Held: Substantial compliance with Section 6(2); technical objections rejected [Paras 15, 26].

Jurisdiction – Limited Interference in Revision – No Jurisdictional Error – Held: Trial Court applied correct legal principles, appreciated evidence properly – No perversity or jurisdictional infirmity found – Revision jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC not attracted [Paras 27–29].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Possession of plaintiffs restored – Trial Court’s decree upheld – No jurisdictional error or perversity found warranting interference under Section 115 CPC [Para 29].
 

Civil Law - Will – Proof Requirement – Attesting Witness Not Examined – Will Held Unproved – Both courts below accepted the Will based solely on scribe’s statement – Held: Under Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Succession Act, at least one attesting witness must be examined to prove execution – Mere testimony of scribe not sufficient where attesting witness was alive but not examined – Will dated 15.02.1980 discarded [Paras 10.3, 23–28, 31–39].

Secondary Evidence – Admissibility of Copy of Will – Valid Grant of Permission – Held: Sufficient proof was given that original Will was lost after being produced for mutation – Secondary evidence rightly permitted under Section 65(c) of Evidence Act – However, failure to prove Will through attesting witness rendered it inadmissible [Paras 13–19].

Date of Death – Conflict Between Official Record and Mutation – Decided on Preponderance – Plaintiff claimed death occurred on 01.04.1980 per death certificate; defendants relied on mutation record showing 19.03.1980 – Held: Mutation process initiated before 01.04.1980, supporting earlier death date – Entry in mutation held more credible in circumstances [Paras 20–22].

Concurrent Findings – When High Court May Interfere – Misapplication of Legal Principles – Held: Though concurrent findings generally not disturbed in second appeal, courts below misapplied law regarding attestation of Will – Interference justified under Section 100 CPC in light of perversity and material legal error [Paras 42–44].

Decision:  Appeal allowed – Judgments of Trial and First Appellate Court set aside – Will dated 15.02.1980 held not proved – Plaintiff declared entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property by natural succession – Decree for possession granted accordingly – No order as to costs [Para 45].