Professional Misconduct – Clause (7), Part I, Second Schedule, Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 – Gross Negligence – Issuance of Utilization Certificates without adequate verification – Council of ICAI held respondent guilty of professional misconduct for certifying financial statements without corroborating documents and failing to disclose reliance on other sources – Negligence deemed gross in nature due to lack of diligence in ensuring accuracy – Respondent found guilty of misconduct under Clause (7) [Paras 38-41, 61].

Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct – Preponderance of Probabilities with Higher Threshold – Disciplinary proceedings under the Chartered Accountants Act do not require proof beyond reasonable doubt but demand a standard higher than mere balance of probabilities – Court clarified the burden of proof in professional misconduct cases, citing domestic and international jurisprudence [Paras 48–60].

Modification of Punishment – Severe Reprimand Instead of Removal from Membership – Considering the respondent’s three-decade-long career without prior complaints and the 19-year delay in proceedings, Court reduced the recommended penalty from removal of name from ICAI Register to a severe reprimand – Reference disposed of with modified penalty [Paras 62–66].

Decision: The respondent, CA Shri Subhajit Sahoo, was held guilty of professional misconduct under Clause (7), Part I, Second Schedule of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The Court modified the ICAI Council’s recommendation, replacing the removal of his name from the Register of Members for one year with a severe reprimand.
 

Criminal Law - Age Determination – Procedural Deficiency – Conviction Under POCSO Act Set Aside – The appellant challenged the victim’s age, arguing insufficient evidence to prove her minority – Court noted reliance solely on a bonafide certificate (Ex.P17), with no corroborating school admission or birth certificate, nor an ossification test – Held: Victim’s age could not be conclusively proved as below 18 years; POCSO Act charges were not attracted [Paras 10-16].

Consent in Sexual Relationship – Conviction for Rape (Section 376 IPC) Set Aside – Evidence revealed consensual intimacy between the appellant and the victim over time – Court observed no evidence of force or coercion in the relationship; victim disclosed allegations only after discovering pregnancy – Held: No offence of rape established [Paras 17-21].

Inducement for Marriage – Conviction Under Section 417 IPC Sustained – Appellant induced the victim under the pretext of marriage but subsequently married another woman – Court upheld conviction under Section 417 IPC for cheating the victim [Para 22].

House Trespass (Section 448 IPC) – Conviction Quashed – The appellant’s visits to the victim’s house were consensual and not proven to constitute house trespass – Held: Conviction under Section 448 IPC set aside [Para 23].

Decision: The criminal appeal was partly allowed. Convictions under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 448 and 376(2)(n) IPC were set aside. The conviction under Section 417 IPC was sustained with a one-year sentence. The appellant was ordered to be released immediately, considering his incarceration duration, unless required in any other case.

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Appellant accused of grievously injuring a woman using a sharp weapon (darat), resulting in life-threatening injuries – Victim’s testimony corroborated by medical evidence and circumstantial findings – Trial Court’s judgment upheld [Paras 28-33].

Credibility of Injured Witness – Testimony Deemed Reliable – Court observed the victim's testimony as credible and consistent with medical evidence – Discrepancies pointed out in minor details were not sufficient to discredit the victim – Held: Injured witness testimony carries significant probative value unless major contradictions exist [Paras 34-38].

Test Identification Parade – Not Substantive Evidence – No Adverse Inference – Argument of procedural flaws in test identification parade dismissed – Court emphasized substantive evidence is identification in court; test identification serves only corroborative purposes [Paras 42-45].

Defensive Plea – Lack of Motive and Falling from a Tree – Rejected – Appellant’s contention that injuries were caused by a fall contradicted by medical evidence indicating sharp weapon use – Held: Defence unsubstantiated and inconsistent with evidence on record [Paras 46-50].

Sentence – Life Imprisonment Under Section 307 IPC – Proportionate – Considering the nature and gravity of injuries, the Court upheld the life sentence and fine imposed, rejecting pleas for reduction of sentence as excessive [Paras 51-55].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellant to life imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and other punishments under Sections 326 and 354 IPC.

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice – Determination of Age – Reassessment Ordered - The JMFC, Bhind, determined the revisionist's age as below 18 years on the date of the offense based on school certificates showing the birth date as 02.07.2006 – Additional Sessions Judge remanded the case for fresh inquiry due to conflicting documents submitted by the complainant suggesting the birth date as 08.06.2005 – Held: Discrepancy in evidence necessitates a comprehensive inquiry under Section 94 of the JJ Act, ensuring all parties have the opportunity to present evidence [Paras 1-15].

Priority of School Records – Legal Standards for Age Determination – Documentary Proof Prevails Over Medical Opinion - Court reaffirmed precedence of official school records over medical opinions for age determination – Medical tests should only be used when documentary evidence is unavailable or unreliable – Application of Section 94 and Rule 12 emphasized for comprehensive assessment [Paras 16-20].

Role of Court – Balancing Juvenile Protection and Prevention of Abuse – Principles Applied - Court noted the necessity of ensuring juvenile protection benefits are not misused to evade justice – Hypertechnical approaches discouraged; however, thorough inquiries mandated in cases of doubt or conflicting evidence [Paras 21-25].

Decision: Revision dismissed. The remand order for conducting a fresh inquiry into the age of the revisionist upheld. Both parties directed to present all relevant documents to the JMFC, Bhind, for appropriate adjudication under the JJ Act [Paras 26-28].

Juvenile Justice – Bail – Denial of Bail by Juvenile Justice Board and Children’s Court – Rejection based on social investigation report citing lack of parental care and potential risks to the child and victim – High Court holds denial of bail improper due to absence of substantive material supporting concerns raised – Accusatory language used in orders contravenes Section 3(viii) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Orders set aside, and CICL released on bail [Paras 8-14, 16-17].

Juvenile Justice – Section 12 of JJ(C&P) Act, 2015 – Bail to Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) – Mandate of Section 12 emphasizes release on bail unless specific grounds such as risk of association with known criminals or exposure to moral, physical, or psychological danger exist – High Court finds no evidence of such risks in the social investigation report – Held: Bail is the rule, refusal is an exception [Paras 9-10, 13-14].

Best Interest Principle – Section 3(i), (iv), and (viii) of JJ(C&P) Act, 2015 – Decision-making regarding CICL must prioritize reformative approach and avoid stigmatizing language – High Court finds that accusatory words in lower court orders violated this principle – Orders quashed as contrary to the Act’s mandate [Paras 9, 13].

Social Investigation Report – Evidentiary Value – High Court observes that concerns in the social investigation report were speculative and lacked corroboration – No record of bad association, risk of absconding, or likelihood of repeating offenses – Rejection of bail based on presumptions held unsustainable [Paras 14(i)-(v)].

Case Law – Relevant Precedents – Reiterated principles from Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 04 of 2020 (SC), Amit Yadav v. State of U.P. (2016), and Shahnawaz Hussain v. State of Jharkhand (2023) – Emphasis on granting bail to juveniles unless clear and valid reasons under Section 12 exist [Paras 11].

Decision – Bail Granted – Impugned orders of Juvenile Justice Board and Children’s Court set aside – CICL released on bail with conditions including parental undertaking to ensure care and prevent bad associations [Paras 15-17].

Order VII Rule 11 – Cause of Action and Limitation – Application Rejected – Petitioners contended that the plaint should be rejected as it lacked a cause of action and the suit was barred by limitation – Court observed that the plaint disclosed a cause of action, as it pleaded joint family properties and refusal of partition on 28/07/2022 – Held: Issues of limitation and possession are mixed questions of fact and law requiring trial; rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was unwarranted [Paras 18-22].

Revenue Records – Fiscal Purpose – Not Proof of Ownership – Petitioners relied on entries in Pahanis and Adangals to argue prior distribution of properties – Court held that revenue records are for fiscal purposes and not conclusive proof of ownership or possession – Held: Rejection cannot be based on revenue entries alone [Para 23].

Judicial Precedents – Relevance and Application – Court distinguished the cases cited by petitioners, including T. Arvindham v. T.V. Satyapal, noting that the present case did not involve “clever drafting” or an illusion of cause of action – Held: The cited judgments were inapplicable to the facts of this case [Paras 24-25].

Court Fee – Plaintiff’s Joint Possession Assumed for Valuation – Petitioners argued insufficient court fee payment under Section 34(2) of APCF & SV Act – Court noted that the issue of court fee was dependent on possession and had to be decided during trial [Para 22].

Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action, and issues of limitation and possession required trial. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was found to lack merit.

Criminal Law - Double Murder – Conviction Upheld Under Section 302 IPC – Bhupinder Singh convicted for the murder of his mother-in-law and brother-in-law using a licensed revolver – Eye witness testimony corroborated by ballistic evidence and post-mortem reports – Court upheld conviction, citing unimpeachable evidence and absence of procedural lapses [Paras 40-45, 50].

Recovery of Weapon – Section 27 Evidence Act – Credible and Admissible – The revolver and cartridges recovered based on the accused's disclosure statement were proven to have been used in the murders – Ballistic expert confirmed cartridge cases matched the recovered revolver, establishing a direct link to the crime [Paras 28-32, 48].

Witness Credibility – Testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 Reliable – Eyewitness accounts were consistent and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence – Court rejected defense arguments of fabrication and contradictions as minor inconsistencies [Paras 19-25, 55].

Motive – Non-Essential in Eyewitness-Based Cases – Defense raised lack of motive; Court clarified that motive is irrelevant when credible eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence establish guilt [Paras 54, 58].

Enhancement of Fine – Victim Compensation Granted – The fine imposed under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act enhanced from ₹5,000 and ₹7,000 to ₹50,000 each – Directed compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased [Paras 60-62].

Decision: The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act were upheld. CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 was partly allowed, enhancing the fines imposed and directing their payment as victim compensation. All sentences to run concurrently.

Civil Law - Devaswom Lands – Title and Possession – Recovery Decreed – Cochin Devaswom Board sought recovery of property associated with the Ashtamangalam Siva Temple – Defendants contested claiming adverse possession and lack of Devaswom title – Court upheld the plaintiff’s title based on the settlement register and decreed recovery of possession, rejecting claims of adverse possession due to unrebutted evidence [Paras 10-14, 18-20].

Adverse Possession – Evidence Insufficient – Claim Rejected – Defendants failed to establish continuous and uninterrupted possession for statutory periods – Unrebutted evidence supported Devaswom ownership – Claim of adverse possession dismissed [Paras 13, 15].

Additional Evidence in Appellate Stage – Denied – Application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to introduce additional evidence was rejected – Court held that no diligence or valid reason was shown for non-production at trial, and the new evidence did not substantiate any new grounds [Paras 19-23].

Remand to Trial Court – Guidelines for Exercise of Power – Application Rejected – Court held that circumstances for remand under Order XLI Rule 23A CPC were not met as issues were adequately addressed by the Trial Court – Emphasized sparing use of remand power to avoid prolonging litigation unnecessarily [Paras 24-28].

Dismissal of Appeals – No Grounds for Interference – Appeals by defendants dismissed due to lack of sufficient cause to set aside the Trial Court's judgment – No error found in decreeing possession to the plaintiff or in dismissing applications for setting aside ex parte decrees [Paras 29-31].

Decision: All appeals were dismissed. Court upheld the Trial Court’s judgment and decrees in favor of the Cochin Devaswom Board. Costs were directed to be borne by the respective parties.
 

Matrimonial Disputes – Power to Quash FIR – Sections 498-A and 506 IPC – Non-Compoundable Offences – Amicable Settlement – FIR Quashed – In matrimonial disputes and cases relating to family matters, where the dispute is personal or private in nature, and the parties have resolved their issues amicably, the High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, even if some of the alleged offences are non-compoundable – Held: The continuation of criminal proceedings after a compromise would be an abuse of the process of law, and there would be no purpose served in continuing such proceedings – [Paras 9-11].

Compromise Between Parties – Legal Recognition – Sections 498-A and 506 IPC – Settlement Verified – The compromise between the parties was verified by the Registrar Judicial of the Court, and both parties confirmed its execution – Held: Once a genuine compromise is established, and the likelihood of conviction is remote, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to injustice – [Paras 3-4, 10-11].

High Court’s Inherent Powers – Matrimonial Offences – Quashing Criminal Proceedings – The High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC extends to quashing criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes when it is evident that the continuation of such proceedings would defeat the settlement and cause unnecessary hardship to the parties – [Para 9].

Judicial Precedent – Matrimonial Offences – Non-Compoundable Nature – The Supreme Court has consistently held that in cases arising from family disputes, even non-compoundable offences may be quashed in the interest of justice where a genuine settlement has been reached – Reliance placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 – [Para 9].

Decision: FIR Quashed: FIR No. 19/2023 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Udhampur, for offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, were quashed in light of the amicable settlement reached between the parties.

Compromise Accepted: The compromise deed executed on 12/09/2024 was verified, and its contents were confirmed by both parties.

Abuse of Process Prevented: It was held that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law and a waste of judicial resources.

Judicial Precedents Followed: The Court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to emphasize that matrimonial disputes can be resolved through compromise, even if the offences are non-compoundable.