Anticipatory Bail – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe by Public Servant – Bail Denied - The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, was accused of demanding ₹1000/- for signing a routine electric connection transfer – Audio recording of the demand and acceptance was submitted – Court held that prima facie the allegations were serious and warranted custodial interrogation – Rejected plea that recording was doctored, stating admissibility is a matter of trial – Bail denied considering gravity and public interest [Paras 2–4, 9–13].

Public Trust – Misuse of Office for Personal Gain – No Protection from Bail - The Court emphasized that even a modest bribe, if demanded by a public servant to perform legal duty, constitutes a breach of public trust – Such misconduct undermines institutional credibility – Held: Merely lacking prior criminal record is insufficient to grant anticipatory bail in corruption cases [Paras 10–12].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Denied – Petition Dismissed - The High Court found no ground to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner – Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed – Custodial interrogation deemed essential to preserve integrity of investigation [Para 13].

Criminal Law - Murder/Assault – Three Incidents – Culpable Homicide – Evidence Established – The appellants were involved in a series of assaults over a land dispute involving livestock, with the final incident leading to the death of the complainant’s father – Prosecution established three distinct incidents on 16.08.1983 through ocular and medical evidence – The third assault led to the death, with clear and consistent testimonies of PW1 (son), PW7 (daughter-in-law), and PW8 (granddaughter), and corroborated by post-mortem findings – Held: Conviction under Section 304 Part I upheld, no reason to interfere with trial court’s findings [Paras 1-3, 10, 14-18, 30-34, 41-44].

Post-Mortem Evidence – Admissibility Without Examining Doctor – Admitted Without Objection – The defense challenged the admissibility of the post-mortem report citing non-examination of the doctor – However, the court held that the post-mortem was marked as Exhibit-4 under Section 294 CrPC on consent without objection – Hence, it was validly relied upon – Held: Objection at appellate stage not maintainable [Paras 33-35].

Section 313 CrPC – False Explanations – Adverse Inference – The accused gave bare and evasive denials under Section 313 CrPC and failed to offer an alternate version or account of their whereabouts – The court drew adverse inference as permissible under settled law – Held: Their silence and denials bolster the prosecution case [Paras 27-29, 44-46].

Independent Witnesses – Credibility – Neighbours Not Related to Victim – The testimonies of PW2 and PW3, independent witnesses and neighbours, corroborated the first and second assaults and general sequence of events – Held: No enmity or motive to falsely implicate – Their evidence found reliable and credible [Paras 16-17, 37-39].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – The court found the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt on all three incidents – Medical and ocular evidence were consistent – Defense failed to raise reasonable doubt – Held: Appeals dismissed, accused to surrender for remaining sentence [Paras 47-48].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Mental Cruelty – Filing of False Criminal Complaint – Divorce Upheld – The wife filed a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband and his family, leading to their arrest and bail – The charges were not proved and they were acquitted – Held: The act of filing such unsubstantiated criminal proceedings caused social stigma and trauma, amounting to mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce rightly granted [Paras 13–23, 38].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Separation – Court’s Finding – The parties were living separately for 29 years with no substantial cohabitation after marriage – Despite the wife’s affidavit expressing willingness to reunite, the Court found reconciliation impossible due to bitterness caused by past conduct – Held: Matrimonial bond was beyond repair – Divorce decree sustained [Paras 15, 39–42].

Standard of Proof – Civil Nature of Proceedings – The Court reiterated that in matrimonial cases, cruelty must be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt – Mental cruelty, being subjective, is inferred from overall conduct and impact – False criminal complaints, even if resulting in acquittal, can suffice for establishing cruelty [Paras 31, 34].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Trial Court’s decree of divorce was upheld – The ground of mental cruelty was proved – Reversal would only prolong hardship – No error in the trial court's judgment [Paras 42–44].

Education Law – NMC Guidelines – Retrospective Application Denied – Petitioners challenged refusal to revise their MBBS supplementary exam results declared on 18.08.2023 in accordance with the amended CBME guidelines reducing passing criteria from 50% to 40% – Interpretation of Notifications – Retrospective vs Prospective Operation – Notification dated 01.09.2023 of NMC not Clarificatory – Held: The 01.09.2023 notification introduced a substantive amendment reducing passing marks from 50% to 40% and cannot be construed as clarificatory or retrospective – Absence of express retrospective intent and the declaration via 03.10.2023 public notice confirming prospective application precludes retrospective application – Notification impacts substantive rights and thus must be read prospectively [Paras 9.1–9.4].

Supplementary Examinations – Continuation of Main Exam – Same Norms to Apply – Held: Supplementary exams are not distinct but a continuation of the main examination cycle – They must adhere to the standards applicable at the time of the main examination – Allowing disparate norms undermines uniformity, parity, and academic integrity – Petitioners’ reliance on declaration date of results (18.08.2023) does not alter the legal position [Para 9.4].
Equitable Relief – Interim Order and Equity – Interim Relief Cannot Override Law – Held: Although interim benefit was granted on 07.11.2023, courts cannot convert interim orders into final reliefs where statutory prescriptions and public interest demand strict adherence to norms – Equity cannot override substantive law especially in high-stakes professional disciplines like medicine – Public interest outweighs individual hardship [Paras 10–10.1].

Binding Nature of Precedents – Decisions of Other High Courts – Not Binding, Only Persuasive – Held: Judgments of Madras and Kerala High Courts granting retrospective effect to 01.09.2023 notification are not binding – This Court respectfully disagrees with the reasoning of those courts – Inter-court precedent not mandatory, especially when factual distinctions and legal reasoning diverge – Only Supreme Court decisions are binding across all High Courts [Paras 11–13].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to benefit of revised guidelines dated 01.08.2023 and 01.09.2023 for supplementary exams held prior thereto – No costs imposed [Para 14].

Civil Procedure – Striking Off Defence – Delay in Filing Written Statement – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner’s defence was struck off for failure to file written statement within the prescribed period – Though petitioner appeared after affixation service, no request for time or application to file written statement was made – High Court held that mere appearance does not extend limitation, and delay was unexplained – Petition dismissed for lack of diligence [Paras 7–12, 17].

Section 151 CPC – Recall of Orders – No Justifiable Grounds for Delay – Applications Dismissed – Applications to recall orders striking off defence and denying right to lead evidence were filed nearly a year later – Delay attributed to counsel’s alleged non-guidance found unconvincing – Petitioner failed to explain inaction after engaging new counsel – Held: Recall application was misconceived and rightly rejected [Paras 15–17].

Right to Lead Evidence – Bar When Defence is Struck Off – Limited Rights Remain – Defendant sought to lead evidence to dispute genuineness of lease documents – Held impermissible in absence of written statement – After striking off defence, defendant has only limited right to cross-examine and cannot introduce independent evidence [Paras 13, 18].

Final Relief – No Perversity or Illegality – Dismissal Upheld – High Court found no legal error in trial court’s orders – Petition under Article 227 dismissed as meritless – Cost orders and denial of evidence upheld [Paras 19–20].
 

Criminal Law – Rape and Abduction – Appeal Against Conviction - Test Identification Parade – Procedural Lapse – Conviction Sustained – Though minor procedural lapses occurred in the test identification parade, Court upheld conviction based on corroborated eyewitness testimonies and forensic evidence – Held: Identification parade is a rule of prudence and non-adherence does not vitiate the evidence when identification in court and corroborative evidence exists [Paras 40-42].

Criminal Intimidation – Mere Use of Abusive Language – No Threat to Cause Alarm – Maksud’s abuse of the prosecutrix using the term “Bhadkhau” did not amount to criminal intimidation under Section 506-II IPC – Held: Trial Court’s conviction set aside as ingredients under Section 503 IPC not met [Paras 34-37].

Electronic Evidence – No 65B Certificate – Validity Upheld – Nokia mobile phone of accused Wasim contained videos/photos of victims in compromising positions – Despite absence of 65B certificate, data admissible due to impossibility of obtaining certificate from accused – Held: Hash value verification and forensic chain of custody sufficient to rely on electronic records [Paras 26-32].

Rape and Abduction – Forcible Acts and Transportation in Vehicle – Conviction for Gang Rape and Abduction Upheld – Victim abducted, forcibly intoxicated and sexually assaulted by Wasim, Kadir, and a juvenile – Held: Consistent, corroborated evidence of victim and eyewitnesses along with medical and forensic support justified conviction under Section 376D IPC [Paras 4-12, 48-49].

Grievous Hurt – Not Attracted – Injuries Not Life-Threatening – Conversion to Simple Hurt – Though Trial Court convicted under Section 326 IPC, medical evidence showed simple injuries – Held: Conviction altered to Section 324 IPC as hurt did not endanger life [Paras 46-47].

Common Intention – Multiple Accused Acting in Concert – Conviction Justified – Offences committed in unison by accused including assault, abduction, rape and recording explicit content – Held: Evidence established shared intention and participation of accused in commission of crimes [Paras 43-44].

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal of Accused Siraj – Identification Not Reliable – No Ocular Testimony – Though identified in TI Parade, no consistent deposition by eyewitnesses placing Siraj inside crime scene – Held: Conviction under Sections 450, 452, 326, 354B IPC set aside for want of sufficient evidence [Para 45].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Convictions of Maksud, Kadir and Wasim modified to exclude Section 326 IPC and include Section 324 IPC – Conviction of Siraj set aside – Other convictions including for rape, abduction, and electronic offences upheld – Sentences modified accordingly [Paras 31, 35, 36, 45, 47].

Family Law - Maintenance to Children – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Quantum Justified – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the Family Court’s order awarding ₹3,000 per month to each of his three minor children, alleging the income assessment was incorrect – Held: Petitioner is an able-bodied labourer assessed to earn ₹17,000/month, while wife earns ₹8,000/month and receives DV maintenance – Court rightly held petitioner liable for maintenance of children as joint responsibility – No perversity found in the impugned order [Paras 2, 10].

Purpose of Maintenance – Social Justice Objective – Protection from Destitution – Judicial Affirmation – Reiterated that Section 125 Cr.P.C. aims to prevent destitution and vagrancy of dependents – Cited Supreme Court rulings in Vimala v. Veeraswamy, (1991) 2 SCC 375, and Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 SCC 479, emphasizing its social justice objective and protective function [Paras 5–7].

Determination Criteria – Maintenance Quantum – Guided by Rajnesh v. Neha Principles – Referring to Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court reiterated mandatory disclosure of assets and liabilities and realistic assessment of earning capacities to ensure neither party is reduced to penury – Award must reflect socio-economic status and needs of dependents [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Petition Dismissed – Family Court Order Affirmed – Family Court's findings were based on cogent appreciation of evidence and legal standards – No interference warranted as petitioner failed to show any legal infirmity or perversity – Petition dismissed [Paras 4, 10].

Civil Law - Pleadings – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Limitation and Customary Law – Rejection Not Permissible Without Evidence – The petitioner sought rejection of a plaint invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing that the claim of inheritance based on a 1926 mutation and the Customary Law barring inheritance through daughters disclosed no cause of action – Held: The existence of Customary Law, limitation, and right to inheritance required factual adjudication and could not be determined at the preliminary stage without evidence – The application was rightly dismissed [Paras 2–8].

Order VII Rule 11 – Only Plaint Averments to be Considered – Defence Cannot Be Basis for Rejection – Reiterated that only the averments in the plaint are relevant at the stage of deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 – The Court cannot consider the defendant’s version, written statement, or evidence at that stage – Reference made to Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat, and Kamala v. K.T. Eshwara Sa – Held: Defence arguments based on Customary Law or previous mutation inadmissible at this stage [Paras 6–7].

Limitation – Mixed Question of Fact and Law – Cannot Be Decided Without Trial – Although the suit was filed 94 years after the 1926 mutation, the issue of limitation was held to be a mixed question of fact and law – Held: Such a question requires evidence and cannot be resolved in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 6].

Decision: Civil Revision – Dismissed – Impugned Order Upheld – The Court found no merit in the revision petition and upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the Order VII Rule 11 application – Held: The plaint disclosed triable issues requiring evidence, and the petition was dismissed accordingly [Paras 6, 9].

Service Law – Departmental Misconduct – Disproportionate Punishment – Removal from Service Set Aside – Petitioner, a Class IV employee, was dismissed after being found guilty in a departmental enquiry for failing to arrive on time to escort a High Court Judge and allegedly being intoxicated – High Court upheld findings of misconduct based on statements of key witnesses and written complaint by the Judge – However, Court held that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate and shocking to judicial conscience – Held: While upholding the misconduct, Court remanded matter to disciplinary authority for reconsideration of penalty – Reinstatement ordered without back wages, applying “no work, no pay” principle [Paras 9–15].