Juvenile Justice – Bail Application –Criminal Revision against the order rejecting bail by Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board – Petitioner a juvenile accused under Sections 148, 149, 302, 120-B IPC and Sections 25(1B)(a), 27(1) Arms Act – Revision allowed – Gravity of the offense is not a criterion to reject bail for a juvenile – Impugned order passed without reference to social background report – No evidence suggesting petitioner would associate with criminals or face moral, physical, or psychological danger if released – Petition allowed and petitioner released on bail. [Paras 1-13]

Consideration of Social Background Report – Importance –Held – The impugned orders lacked reference to the Social Background Report – The court emphasized the necessity of considering such reports in bail decisions for juveniles – Absence of such consideration deemed a significant oversight, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders. [Para 13]

Decision –Criminal Revision allowed –The court allowed the criminal revision petition, setting aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Additional Sessions Judge – The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. [Para 14]

Eligibility for Membership – Primary Society Chairmanship – Section 28 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 – Petitioner ceased to be the Chairman of the Primary Society on 15.08.2019 – Consequently, he ceased to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Union – Order of removal from the post of Chairman upheld – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Statutory Interpretation – Board of Directors – Section 28(1) provides for election and tenure of the committee members of a co-operative society – Tenure of office bearers governed by Section 30 and the bye-laws of the society – Petitioner’s argument based on Section 28(4) dismissed as it does not apply to office bearers [Paras 12-17].

Administrative Fairness – Compliance with Bye-laws – Bye-law 16.1 requires the Chairman of the Union to be an elected Chairman of an affiliated primary society – Petitioner’s cessation as Chairman of the primary society led to automatic disqualification from the Board of Directors of the Union [Paras 13-17].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Petitioner’s removal from the post of Chairman of Rohtak Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Rohtak upheld – Petitioner ceased to be eligible for membership on losing primary society chairmanship – No merit in the petition [Paras 20-21].

Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Senior citizen mother filed a civil suit for eviction of her son from her property – Appeal questioned the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, citing exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the 2007 Act – Court held that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is plenary and not explicitly barred by the Act – No clear provision in the Act conferring eviction jurisdiction to Tribunals – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2-18].

Eviction of Family Members – Senior Citizens – Mother sought eviction of her son from her property, arguing he had no right, title, or interest – Lower courts found in favor of the mother, recognizing her ownership and right to evict – Court emphasized the welfare of senior citizens and interpreted the Act to advance substantive justice – Appeal against eviction dismissed [Paras 3, 10-12].

Jurisdiction and Exclusion – Tests from Supreme Court Precedent – Applied seven tests from the Supreme Court case of Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh to determine exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction – Found the suit maintainable and not barred by the Act – Emphasized that exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Lower court judgments upheld – Appeal dismissed, affirming the mother’s right to evict the son from her property – Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Section 174-A IPC – Non-appearance in Court – FIR registered against the petitioner for non-appearance in trial proceedings – Petitioner later granted anticipatory bail and acquitted in the main case – High Court held that continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC after acquittal in the main case constitutes abuse of court process – FIR quashed [Paras 1-11].

Judicial Precedents – Quashing in Similar Circumstances – Court relied on precedents where FIRs under Section 174-A IPC were quashed when the main case was dismissed for want of prosecution or concluded in favor of the accused – Affirmed that acquittal in the main case warrants quashing of FIR for non-appearance [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Petition Allowed – FIR under Section 174-A IPC and all subsequent proceedings quashed – Continuation of such proceedings after acquittal deemed abuse of the process of the court [Paras 11].

Education Law – Admission and Eligibility – Fault of School – Petitioner took Class XII examination but was declared ineligible due to his Class X certificate being from a non-recognized school – Court held it was the responsibility of the admitting school to verify documents before granting admission to Class XI – Fault lies with the school, not the student – Writ petition allowed, directing CBSE to declare the petitioner’s result [Paras 1-12].

Misrepresentation – Responsibility of School – Allegation of misrepresentation by the petitioner was not acceptable as students and parents typically sign printed forms provided by the school – It was the school's duty to verify the eligibility criteria – Failure to scrutinize admission documents disqualified the CBSE from taking detrimental action against the petitioner [Para 11].

Judicial Precedents – Doctrine of Waiver and Acquiescence – Relied on precedent where the doctrine of waiver and acquiescence applied in similar circumstances – No concealment or misrepresentation by the student found – CBSE directed to declare the petitioner’s result [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Decision declaring petitioner ineligible quashed – CBSE directed to declare petitioner’s Class XII result within four weeks [Para 12].

Service Law – Selection Criteria – Elementary Trained Teachers (ETT) – Challenge to the selection criteria for ETT posts, which awarded additional marks for higher qualifications – Petitioners argued this was contrary to the Service Rules which mandate selection based solely on written test scores – Court held that the criteria violated Rule 6(4) of the 2018 Service Rules, which require final selection to be based solely on written test merit – Impugned selection criteria and the selection process quashed [Paras 1-29].

Legislative Authority and Administrative Instructions – Recruitment criteria granting additional marks for higher qualifications amount to an amendment of Service Rules, which can only be done legislatively – Administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules – Recruitment process must comply with the amended rules as of February 2020, which emphasize merit in written examinations alone [Paras 22-25].

Jurisdiction and Competency – Recruitment Directorate vs. Education Recruitment Board – Recruitment conducted by the Recruitment Directorate instead of the statutorily defined Education Recruitment Board – Court found that the Directorate lacked jurisdiction to finalize the selection process, rendering the entire process void ab initio – Proper authority as per the rules is the Education Recruitment Board [Paras 26-30].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned advertisement and selection process for ETT posts quashed – Directed fresh recruitment in accordance with the Service Rules, ensuring adherence to the competitive test-based selection without additional qualifications-based weightage [Paras 31-39].

Habeas Corpus – Child Custody – Legal and Proper Detention – Petition for habeas corpus seeking release of minor son aged 14 years – Child living with grandfather and uncle since birth – Court held writ of habeas corpus maintainable only if custody is illegal or improper – Direct interaction with the child showed he was happy living with his grandfather and did not want to go with the mother to the UK – Custody with grandfather and uncle not illegal or improper – Petition dismissed, liberty to seek remedy under Guardians and Wards Act [Paras 1-12].

Child Welfare – Paramount Consideration – Welfare of the child is the paramount consideration – Child's preference to stay with grandfather and uncle and his well-being were critical factors – Court found no need to change custody for the child's welfare – Petitioner advised to seek custody through appropriate legal channels under the Guardians and Wards Act [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Habeas corpus petition dismissed – Petitioner given liberty to file application under Guardians and Wards Act – Child to be produced for meeting with the mother before her departure to the UK [Paras 11-12].

Stamp Duty – Assessment and Recovery – Jurisdiction and Limitation – Petitioner filed writ petitions against the State for initiating recovery of deficient stamp duty on assignment deeds registered in 2016. Revenue authorities claimed the deeds were conveyance deeds and insufficiently stamped. Petitioner contended that action was barred by limitation under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority lacked jurisdiction to suo motu assess the deficiency. High Court held that the action was barred by limitation and the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority acted beyond its powers. Writ petitions allowed. Orders quashed [Paras 12-18].

Classification of Assignment Deeds – Stamp Duty – Assignment deeds registered by petitioner involved transfer of loans secured by financial institutions. Authorities argued deeds were conveyance deeds and should be stamped accordingly. Court held deeds involved transfer of right to recover loans, covered under Article 62(c) of Schedule 1-A, not conveyance deeds under Article 23. Proper stamp duty was paid. Action to recover additional duty held invalid [Paras 6, 10, 16].

Fraud Allegation – Limitation – Authorities claimed fraud to justify recovery beyond three-year limit. Court found no evidence of fraud in the registration of deeds. Held, mere failure to classify correctly at the time of registration does not constitute fraud. Limitation applies even if fraud is alleged. Action barred [Paras 13, 14].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed. Orders by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and other authorities quashed. Recovery proceedings initiated after the limitation period are barred. Proper classification and stamp duty assessment as per Article 62(c) affirmed [Paras 18-19].

Negotiable Instruments – Section 138 Conviction – Compromise – Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Petitioner sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and compensation – Appeal dismissed – During revision, parties reached a compromise – Court observed that as the offence is compoundable and the compromise is bona fide, the conviction and sentence should be set aside – Petitioner to deposit 15% of the cheque amount with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority [Paras 1-14].

Compromise – Judicial Process – The Court emphasized the role of compromise in maintaining peace and harmony – Held that the compromise was genuine and free from undue influence – Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has a compensatory profile, prioritizing reconciliation over punishment [Paras 8, 11, 12].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside based on the compromise – Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 60,000 (15% of cheque amount) with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority within three weeks – If the amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, the petition would be deemed dismissed [Paras 13-14].