Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Prolonged Detention and Presumption of Innocence – The petitioner, charged under Section 22 of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing intoxicating tablets, sought bail, citing extended incarceration and the lack of further evidence recovery – Co-accused had already been granted bail, and only a third of the prosecution witnesses had been examined – Held: Granting bail is the general rule, detention the exception; with trial delay and no further recovery required, continued detention serves no purpose [Paras 1-4].

Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Detention Not Justified – The Court stressed the constitutional mandate for a fair and speedy trial, noting that extended pre-conviction detention undermines justice and violates Article 21 – Referencing Supreme Court guidelines, the Court affirmed that excessive pre-trial incarceration contravenes principles of human dignity and legal fairness [Paras 4-6].

Decision:

Petition for regular bail allowed. Petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. This decision does not influence the merits of the case [Paras 5-7].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – False Promise of Marriage – FIR registered under Sections 376, 417, and 504 IPC against the petitioners – Allegations of rape based on a false promise of marriage by the first petitioner – Engagement between the complainant and the first petitioner broke down due to family disputes – Contention: Relationship was consensual and allegations were baseless – Held: FIR and charge sheet quashed as allegations did not constitute the offence of rape or cheating under IPC [Paras 2–4, 16–18].

Consent and Misconception of Fact – False Promise vs. Breach of Promise – Examined distinction between consensual sexual relationships and rape – A false promise of marriage amounts to rape only when made without any intention to marry from inception – Breach of a genuine promise due to unforeseen circumstances does not constitute rape or cheating – Court relied on precedents distinguishing between consensual acts and coerced acts based on deception [Paras 9–15].

Witness Testimony – Allegations and Material Evidence – FIR and charge sheet reviewed – Relationship between the complainant and first petitioner spanned seven years, including after the engagement ceremony – No evidence showed the promise to marry was false from inception – Allegations reflected a consensual relationship, not one based on deception [Paras 2–3, 16–18].

Precedents Cited – Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 – Differentiation between false promise and breach of promise – Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 – Court must evaluate whether consent was vitiated by misrepresentation – Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1652) – Consensual relationships do not attract Section 376 IPC without clear evidence of deceit – Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032) – FIR quashed when allegations lacked ingredients of rape or coercion.

Decision – Appeal allowed – FIR and charge sheet quashed – Further proceedings would amount to abuse of process and miscarriage of justice – Petitioners discharged from prosecution [Paras 17–18].

Non-Registration of Tenancy – Grounds for Eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of TNRRRLT Act – The Court upheld eviction based on non-registration of tenancy agreements under the TNRRRLT Act – Held: Compliance with statutory mandates is imperative, and non-registration of tenancy agreements constitutes a valid ground for eviction [Paras 18-19].

Applicability of Section 3 of TNRRRLT Act to Religious Properties – The petitioner argued Section 3(c) of the TNRRRLT Act barred eviction, asserting that the land belonged to HR&CE – Court held that dual ownership principles under Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, apply – The building's ownership by the landlord and land's ownership by HR&CE did not preclude eviction as long as HR&CE rights were unaffected [Paras 22-26].

Estoppel and Tenant’s Challenge to Landlord’s Title – Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act – The Court reaffirmed that a tenant is estopped from denying the landlord’s title once inducted into tenancy – Arguments regarding mortgage and ownership were deemed unsustainable without evidence [Paras 12-14].

Decision- Relief and Undertaking – Grant of Time to Vacate Premises – Petitioner sought six months to vacate premises voluntarily – Court allowed the time frame based on the petitioner's undertaking affidavit, preventing execution proceedings within the stipulated period [Paras 28-29].
 

Criminal Law - Forgery and Cheating – Lack of Material Evidence – Acquittal Upheld – The prosecution failed to produce critical evidence such as admit cards, attendance sheets, answer sheets, and roll number slips to substantiate charges of forgery and cheating – Held: Acquittal justified due to lack of material evidence and procedural lapses [Paras 20-25].

Duty of Investigating Agencies – Fair Investigation Mandated – Lapses Criticized – Investigating Officer admitted to intentionally not taking possession of documents that could establish the innocence of the accused – Court emphasized that a fair investigation requires presenting all material evidence, whether incriminating or exculpatory [Paras 30-34].

Allegations of Tampering – Reasonable Doubt Persisted – Acquittal Justified – Evidence presented by the prosecution, including contradictory entries in admission registers and school records, failed to conclusively establish criminal intent or tampering – Reasonable doubt benefited the accused [Paras 26-29].

Role of Investigators and Prosecutors – Responsibility to Prevent Unmerited Prosecution – Reiterating principles from landmark cases, Court held that unmerited prosecution violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection against arbitrary actions – Directed authorities to ensure fair investigation and training of personnel [Paras 35-38].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Directions Issued – The appeal by the State was dismissed, affirming the Trial Court's acquittal – Directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), DGP, and Director Prosecution to implement corrective measures, including monitoring mechanisms and training programs for investigators and prosecutors [Para 39].

Adoption Deed Registration – Applicability to Muslim Personal Law – Adoption Not Recognized – Refusal Upheld - The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, does not recognize adoption as a mode of filiation – Petitioners sought to register an adoption deed, which was refused citing lack of provision under the Registration Act, 1908, and the absence of enabling provisions for online registration in the case of Muslims – Court held: Adoption deeds are not compulsorily registrable under Sections 17 and 18 of the Registration Act – Refusal justified [Paras 11-12, 16].

Adoption Regulations Under J.J. Act, 2015 – Uniform Procedures for Adoption Across Religions - Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Adoption Regulations, 2017, adoption is governed by uniform procedures irrespective of religion – Petitioners directed to comply with these provisions rather than seeking registration under Muslim Personal Law – Registration of an adoption deed without following the regulations lacks legal sanctity [Paras 14-16, 19].

Role of Customary Practices in Adoption – Limited Recognition - The Court acknowledged that customs permitting adoption may have legal relevance if proven – However, without evidence of prevailing custom or compliance with statutory adoption procedures, adoption deeds executed outside the Juvenile Justice framework hold no legal value – Custom must be pleaded and proved before competent civil courts [Paras 8, 15-16].

Bar on Registering Adoption Deeds Without Legal Framework – Directions Issued to Registrars - Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu, directed to restrain registrars from registering any adoption deeds executed without compliance with mandatory statutory provisions, irrespective of the adopters’ religion – Circular to be issued to enforce this directive [Para 20].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioners Directed to Follow Adoption Regulations - Writ Petition dismissed for lack of merit – Petitioners permitted to proceed under Adoption Regulations, 2017, notified under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Registration of the adoption deed held futile and legally invalid [Paras 19-20].

Declaration of Title and Cancellation of Sale Deed – Burden of Proof – Fraud Not Proved – The appellants (plaintiffs in O.S. No. 102 of 1999) sought cancellation of a registered sale deed executed in 1978 and declaration of title over the disputed property. The appellants alleged fraud and undue influence but failed to provide specific evidence of fraud, undue influence, or misrepresentation. – Held: In a suit for declaration of title, the burden is on the plaintiffs to establish clear and sufficient evidence to prove their case. Mere allegations without evidence cannot invalidate a registered sale deed. [Paras 16-22, 25].

Limitation – Challenge to Sale Deed after 21 Years – Barred by Limitation – The suit to cancel the sale deed executed in 1978 was filed in 1999, after 21 years, and no valid explanation for the delay was provided. – Held: The suit for cancellation of the sale deed was barred by limitation, and the appellants failed to plead or prove any justifiable grounds for condonation. [Paras 22, 25].

Rectification of Sale Deed – Mutual Mistake – Boundaries Prevail Over Survey Numbers – The respondents (plaintiffs in O.S. No. 150 of 1999) sought rectification of a sale deed to correct an incorrect survey number and patta number, arguing the mistake was mutual. – Held: The boundaries of the property remained undisputed, and the incorrect survey and patta numbers were a result of mutual mistake. Under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, rectification was justified as the mistake did not affect the actual title or boundaries. [Paras 31-33].

Limitation for Rectification of Sale Deed – Cause of Action – The appellants argued that the suit for rectification was time-barred. However, the respondents contended that the cause of action arose only in 1999 when the appellants attempted to alienate the property. – Held: The plea of limitation was not raised in the pleadings, and in the absence of such a plea, the issue cannot be considered. Further, the cause of action was rightly established in 1999, and the suit for rectification was filed within the limitation period. [Paras 27-29].

Effect of Revenue Records – No Title Conferred – The appellants relied on entries in revenue records and pattadar passbooks issued in 1999 to claim ownership. – Held: Revenue records and pattadar passbooks do not confer title over immovable property; they merely establish possession or revenue liability. [Para 22].

Evidentiary Value of Advocate-Commissioner’s Report – The appellants relied on the report of the Advocate-Commissioner. – Held: A report by an Advocate-Commissioner does not amount to a substantive finding unless tested through examination in court. The report in this case carried no evidentiary value as it was not tested in the trial court. [Para 31].

Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Undue Influence – Burden of Proof – Fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence must be specifically pleaded and proved with cogent evidence. – Held: General allegations of fraud without specific pleadings and supporting evidence cannot sustain a claim for cancellation of a registered instrument. [Paras 22-24].

Decision: A.S. No. 2137 of 2004 (Plaintiffs' appeal in O.S. No. 102 of 1999): Dismissed. The appellants failed to prove fraud or undue influence in the execution of the sale deed. The suit was also barred by limitation.

A.S. No. 2138 of 2004 (Defendants' appeal in O.S. No. 150 of 1999): Dismissed. The rectification of the sale deed was justified as the mistake in the survey number and patta number was mutual and did not affect the boundaries or title.
 

Service Law - Reservation in Promotion under Disabilities Act, 2016 – Interpretation of Section 34 – The petitioners, who are Junior Engineers with benchmark disabilities, contended their entitlement to reservation in promotions as per Section 34 of the Disabilities Act, 2016, arguing the 4% PwD quota should extend to Grade-II posts, including the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) – The court determined that Office Memorandum dated 17/01/2019, which restricted PwD reservations to Grades III and IV, contravened the Disabilities Act, 2016 – Held: Petitioners are entitled to consideration for promotion under the PwD quota, and the respondent authorities must adhere to the Disabilities Act by applying the 4% reservation to all grades including Grade-II [Paras 6-9, 33-34].
Backlog and Carry Forward of PwD Vacancies – Application of Section 34(2) of Disabilities Act, 2016 – Despite repeated promotions in 2021 and 2022, the respondent authorities did not fill the PwD quota, promoting PwD officers based only on seniority – The court noted Section 34(2) mandates carrying forward unfilled PwD vacancies – Held: Respondents must retroactively consider petitioners for promotion under the benchmark disabilities quota, effective from the date of prior promotions in 2021, ensuring compliance with Section 34(2) [Paras 24, 30-31].

Right to Consideration for Promotion under PwD Quota – Petitioners argued deprivation of their right to reservation in promotion, citing Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India – The court emphasized that identified posts capable of being filled by disabled persons should reserve positions for PwDs regardless of recruitment method – Held: Failure to consider the petitioners under PwD quota contravenes legal mandates; thus, respondents directed to evaluate promotion eligibility of petitioners under PwD reservation retrospectively [Paras 31-32].

Decision: The writ petitions are allowed. Respondent authorities are directed to consider the petitioners for promotion to Assistant Engineer (Civil) with retrospective effect from 2021, applying the 4% reservation in accordance with the Disabilities Act, 2016.
 

Election Spending Limits – Violation under Sections 77 and 123(6) of R.P. Act – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the returned candidate’s election, alleging that his campaign expenditure exceeded the legal limit, constituting a corrupt practice. Held: To prove corrupt practices, the petitioner must demonstrate expenses exceeding the statutory limit beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the alleged expenditures lacked sufficient corroboration, as election monitoring logs reflected only visible expenses observed by the Expenditure Observer, and other unverified expenditures were not legally attributable to the candidate. Without a definitive record of excess expenses, the petitioner’s claim was unsubstantiated [Paras 22-32, 47].
Burden of Proof in Election Petitions – Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Required – As election petitions carry quasi-criminal implications, claims of corrupt practice require evidence meeting a strict standard. Following Surinder Singh v. Hardial Singh, the Court ruled that mere suspicion or incomplete records do not suffice. Here, expenditures recorded separately by the candidate and observer did not conclusively establish excess spending. The petition thus failed to meet the evidentiary burden [Paras 14, 15, 23].
Equity in Election Law – Strict Compliance with Statutory Provisions – Emphasizing the binding nature of election law, the Court cited Jagannath v. Jaswant Singh, ruling that equitable principles do not apply in statutory election disputes, and the results of an election cannot be lightly overturned without concrete statutory violation [Paras 16, 41].
Decision: The petition is dismissed. The Court held that the evidence failed to substantiate claims of excessive election expenditure by the returned candidate, and equity considerations do not influence statutory election procedures. The petitioner’s costs will be returned.
 

Criminal Law – Right to Bail in Extended Detention – Application of Section 480(6) of BNSS – The petitioner was held in custody for over two years, with the trial progressing slowly due to procedural delays – Section 480(6) mandates release if trial for non-bailable offenses triable by a Magistrate is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for evidence – Held: Since only one prosecution witness out of 33 had been examined despite the lapse of statutory 60 days, petitioner is entitled to bail [Paras 5-8].

Right to Speedy Trial – Extended Custody and Bail Entitlement under BNSS – Petitioner’s trial stalled with minimal progress due to procedural delays – Court emphasized the statutory protection against prolonged detention under BNSS, affirming that extended custody without trial progress infringes on rights of the accused – Held: Bail granted to prevent indefinite detention, with requirements for bond and surety [Paras 9-11].

Decision: The second bail application is allowed. The accused-petitioner is granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and two sureties of ₹50,000 each, subject to conditions of appearance at all court hearings [Paras 12-14].