Civil Law - Impleadment of Party – Necessary or Proper Party – No Interference Warranted – The petitioner challenged the Rent Controller’s order allowing the respondents’ application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Kuljinder Singh (petitioner's attorney) as a necessary party – The Court noted that the respondents had made specific allegations that the petitioner had sublet the premises to Kuljinder Singh after securing eviction under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act – Held: Since the dispute involved allegations of subletting, impleadment was justified for a complete adjudication of the case [Paras 5-7].

Principle of Dominus Litis – Applicant's Right to Choose Parties – The Court held that the applicant in a legal proceeding has the right to decide whom to implead, provided there is a reasonable basis for doing so – Since the respondents had already mentioned Kuljinder Singh in their pleadings but omitted him in the memo of parties due to an oversight, rectifying the error through impleadment was legally valid – Held: No interference required; impleadment order upheld [Paras 7-8].

No Prejudice to Petitioner – Impleadment Does Not Delay Proceedings – The petitioner argued that adding Kuljinder Singh as a party would delay the proceedings – The Court rejected this argument, noting that any delay would primarily affect the respondents, who were seeking possession – Held: The impleadment order did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner; revision petition dismissed [Paras 8].

Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – The High Court upheld the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petitioner’s challenge – Held: Since impleadment was necessary for effective adjudication, no grounds existed for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India [Paras 8].

Criminal Law – FIR Quashing - Declaration as Proclaimed Person – Procedural Non-Compliance – Order Quashed – The petitioner was declared a proclaimed person in proceedings arising out of a complaint under Section 420 read with 120B IPC – The Trial Court issued a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC without first issuing summons or bailable warrants – Held: Failure to record satisfaction regarding the accused’s intentional evasion vitiates the proclamation; declaration as proclaimed person quashed [Paras 6-9].

Consequential FIR under Section 174-A IPC – Quashing Justified – Based on the proclamation order, an FIR under Section 174-A IPC was registered against the petitioner – The Court held that since the declaration as a proclaimed person was legally flawed, the consequential FIR could not stand – Held: FIR under Section 174-A IPC quashed [Paras 10-12].

Right to Fair Procedure – Compliance with Section 82 CrPC Mandatory – The Court reiterated that before declaring an accused a proclaimed person, the Trial Court must ensure compliance with Section 82 CrPC – Reference made to Major Singh @ Major v. State of Punjab, 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406 – Held: Courts must strictly adhere to procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty [Paras 13-15].

Petition Allowed – Declaration as proclaimed person and FIR quashed – The Court found the impugned orders to be arbitrary and violative of legal procedure – Held: Petition allowed, all proceedings against the petitioner set aside [Paras 16].

Civil Writ - Registration of Births – Change of Name in Birth Certificate – Sections 14 & 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 – No Express Provision for Name Change – Held: The Act and Rules provide for registration of a child’s name if not initially recorded but do not contemplate a subsequent change of name – The Registrar was correct in rejecting the request under Section 15, which only allows corrections in case of errors, fraudulent, or improper entries – However, in the absence of specific legal provisions, a procedure must be devised to allow such changes through an affidavit process [Paras 10-14, 19-22].

Legislative Anomaly – Need for Amendment – Law Commission of Karnataka’s 24th Report – Held: The current law does not account for practical scenarios where individuals seek to change names – The Karnataka Law Commission recommended amendments in its 24th Report to facilitate name changes under specified conditions such as personal choice, marriage, adoption, religious conversion, or nationality change – Legislature urged to amend the law to avoid unnecessary hardships [Paras 23-24].

Procedure for Name Change – Judicial Directions – Held: Until legislative amendments are made, authorities must adopt a procedure allowing name changes upon submission of an affidavit by parents or the individual – Registrar to verify identity, enter the new name alongside the original, and endorse the change in the Birth Certificate – Ensures both authenticity and prevention of misuse [Paras 27-32].

Decision – Endorsement Quashed – Name Change Allowed – Held: The impugned endorsement rejecting the request is quashed – Registrar directed to change the petitioner’s name from "Adhrith Bhat" to "Shrijith Bhat" in the Birth Register – Birth Certificate to be reissued with an endorsement reflecting both original and changed names [Paras 35-37].
 

Service Law – Termination on Basis of Criminal Case – Acquittal Makes Termination Illegal – The petitioner was terminated based on pending criminal proceedings, but he was acquitted by a judgment dated 30/10/2021 – The Court held that the termination was unjustified as the Education Officer ignored the acquittal order and acted arbitrarily [Paras 6-7].

Employment Law – Reinstatement with Continuity of Service – The Court quashed the termination order dated 12/04/2022, holding that the petitioner was wrongfully removed from service – Directed reinstatement with full continuity of service as Shikshan Sevak, entitling him to regular promotion as an Assistant Teacher in accordance with applicable rules [Paras 10-11].

Back Wages – 50% Awarded Due to Arbitrary Termination – The Court held that since the Education Officer knowingly terminated the petitioner despite his acquittal, the petitioner was entitled to full back wages – However, as per the petitioner’s voluntary statement, he agreed to accept only 50% back wages to put the dispute to rest—The Court allowed this concession but stated that if the BMC further litigated, the claim for full back wages would be revived [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Termination Quashed – Reinstatement with 50% Back Wages – The Court set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement with continuity of service – 50% of back wages to be paid within 60 days, failing which the amount would carry 6% interest per annum – Subsequent re-appointment treated as inconsequential as the petitioner’s original appointment stood restored [Paras 11-12].
 

Matrimonial Law - Domestic Violence Act – Maintainability of Application Under Section 528 BNSS (Earlier Section 482 CrPC) – Whether Proceedings Can Be Quashed at Notice Stage – Held: Referred to Larger Bench – Conflicting views of Co-ordinate Benches on whether an application under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC) can be entertained to quash proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act at the notice stage – Smt. Suman Mishra v. State of U.P. held that such applications are not maintainable, while Devendra Agarwal v. State of U.P. held that they are maintainable – Issue referred to Larger Bench for authoritative determination [Paras 4-10, 20-22].

Judicial Discipline – Whether Co-ordinate Bench Can Declare an Earlier Judgment Per Incuriam – Held: No – Devendra Agarwal declared the judgment in Smt. Suman Mishra as per incuriam without referring the issue to a Larger Bench – Held: A Bench of equal strength cannot ignore or overrule a prior decision; it must either follow it or refer the matter to a Larger Bench – Reliance placed on State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer and Mary Pushpam v. Telvi Curusumary [Paras 13-16, 21].

Quashing of Domestic Violence Proceedings – Whether Section 528 BNSS (Earlier Section 482 CrPC) Applies – Held: To Be Determined by Larger Bench – Dispute over whether notice issued under Section 12 of the D.V. Act can be challenged under Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC) – Smt. Suman Mishra held it cannot be challenged, whereas Devendra Agarwal held it can be quashed – Larger Bench to decide whether such proceedings should be challenged under Article 226/227 of the Constitution instead [Paras 8-12].

Protection Officer’s Notice – Whether Subject to Judicial Review – Held: Issue to be Decided by Larger Bench – Notice by Protection Officer under D.V. Act challenged – Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan held that D.V. Act proceedings are primarily civil in nature – Issue referred to Larger Bench to determine whether notices issued under Section 12 of the D.V. Act are amenable to Section 528 BNSS (earlier Section 482 CrPC) or only to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Matter Referred to Larger Bench for Final Determination – High Court referred seven legal questions to Hon’ble the Chief Justice for consideration by a Larger Bench – Trial Court directed to adjourn proceedings until final decision by Larger Bench [Paras 20-23].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Allegations of Rape – Sections 450, 506(i), 376(2)(f), 376(2)(l), and 376(2)(n) of the IPC - FIR and Charge Sheet Quashed – Petitioner, elder brother-in-law of the complainant, was accused of repeated sexual assault – Delay of over a year in lodging FIR, no disclosure of allegations in earlier FIR filed just 4 days prior – Final report exaggerated original allegations with no specific date or prima facie evidence – Held: Prosecution is abuse of process, fabricated due to family property dispute – FIR and charge sheet quashed [Paras 3–14].

Delay in Filing Complaint – Contradiction in Successive FIRs – Inference of Falsity – Apex Court Precedent Followed – Alleged victim made no mention of rape in earlier complaint recorded days prior – Subsequent FIR widened allegations substantially – Held: Non-disclosure in initial FIR fatal to prosecution case – Entire sequence reflects manipulative and vindictive intent [Paras 4–10].

Family Dispute – Malicious Prosecution – Criminal Law Misused – Allegations stemmed from dissatisfaction over family property division – Complainant had also filed rape cases against multiple other in-laws, some already acquitted – Held: Cumulative conduct suggests pattern of misuse of criminal process for personal vendetta [Paras 4–6, 11].

Decision – FIR and Charge Sheet Quashed – Court held that the allegations lacked credibility, were delayed, inconsistent, and pointed to an abuse of process – Entire prosecution quashed under Section 482 CrPC to prevent miscarriage of justice – Directed Registry to forward order to trial court [Paras 13–14].

Service Law – Reservation for BC Category – Requirement of Fresh BC Certificate – Validity of Certificates – Rejection of Candidature Arbitrary – Candidates applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (General Duty) under BC-A/BC-B category – Their candidature was rejected on the ground that caste certificates were issued before 01.04.2023 – Held: No specific cut-off date was prescribed in the advertisement for BC certificate submission – As per Haryana Government instructions, caste certificates remain valid for a lifetime, but certificates including income details (creamy layer status) are valid only till the end of the financial year – The requirement of a "fresh latest certificate" does not imply that a certificate issued before 01.04.2023 becomes invalid – Rejection of candidates based solely on an administrative cut-off date was arbitrary and unjustified – Rejection order quashed – Authorities directed to consider petitioners under the BC category based on Parivar Pehchan Patra verification [Paras 10-12].

Recruitment Process – Change of Rules Midway – CET Qualified Candidates – Violation of Established Selection Norms – Candidates were initially shortlisted based on Common Eligibility Test (CET) results under the BC category – The rejection at a later stage on technical grounds regarding the date of caste certificate amounts to a change in the "rules of the game" after the selection process began – Held: Once a candidate was categorized as BC at the CET stage, authorities could not impose fresh conditions regarding caste certificate submission unless specifically mentioned in the advertisement – Rejection order quashed – Petitioners entitled to be considered under BC category as per CET selection [Paras 20-22].

Use of Parivar Pehchan Patra (PPP) – Verification of Caste Status – Government Bound to Use Official Verification System – The Government had introduced PPP-linked certificates for ease of verification – Advertisement clause 6.5 provided that in the absence of a fresh BC certificate, caste status would be determined from PPP – Held: Since the authorities had access to PPP data, they could verify the caste status of candidates, and rejecting candidates for not submitting a fresh BC certificate was unjustified – The authorities were bound to verify caste details from the official portal if the certificate was not submitted – Respondents directed to verify caste status from PPP and not reject candidates solely for not submitting a fresh certificate [Paras 21-23].

Administrative Discretion – Principles of Reasonableness – Violation of Fair Selection Process – The principle that "rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection process starts" was reiterated – Authorities cannot introduce new conditions after the recruitment process has begun, which were not specified in the initial advertisement – Directions issued to reconsider the petitioners' candidature in the reserved category based on PPP verification – Any rejection must be based on a valid reason, not an arbitrary administrative cut-off date [Paras 24-26].

Decision: The rejection of the petitioners’ candidature based on the non-submission of a fresh BC certificate issued after 01.04.2023 was quashed. The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioners under the BC-A/BC-B category based on their verified caste details in the Parivar Pehchan Patra (PPP). The authorities were further instructed to avoid arbitrary cut-off dates and ensure fairness in the selection process by adhering to established verification mechanisms.

Reassessment Proceedings – Applicability of First Proviso to Section 147 – Extended Time Limit Under TOLA – The petitioner argued that the reassessment notice under Section 148 was issued beyond four years without any failure on his part to disclose material facts fully and truly, and hence, was barred by the first proviso to Section 147 – The Revenue contended that the extended time limit under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2022 (TOLA) applied – Held: The applicability of TOLA was not raised before the Assessing Officer, and such an objection cannot be raised for the first time in a writ petition – The petitioner is free to raise this contention in appeal [Paras 15-16].

Change of Opinion – Whether Reassessment is Permissible When Issues Were Examined During Original Assessment – The petitioner claimed that the deduction under Section 54F and income from house property were already examined during scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), and thus, reassessment amounted to a change of opinion – The Court noted that the original assessment record did not reflect any specific query raised on these issues – Held: Since there was no explicit examination of these issues, the reassessment does not amount to a mere change of opinion – The petitioner can, however, challenge this aspect before the Appellate Authority [Paras 16-17].

Reassessment Based on Audit Objections – Validity of Reopening Proceedings – The petitioner contended that reassessment was initiated at the behest of the audit party, which amounts to "borrowed satisfaction" – The Court observed that if reassessment is based solely on factual errors pointed out by the audit party, it is invalid, but if it raises a question of law, it is permissible – Held: The reasons recorded for reopening did not refer to audit objections, and the petitioner had not demonstrated how internal audit documents were accessed – This contention requires factual examination, which is beyond the writ jurisdiction [Paras 18-19].

Alternate and Efficacious Remedy – Maintainability of Writ Petition Under Article 226 – The Revenue argued that an alternate remedy of statutory appeal under Chapter XX of the Income Tax Act was available, making the writ petition not maintainable – The Court held that the availability of appeal, without the requirement of pre-deposit, made it a more appropriate remedy – Held: Writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy – The petitioner is granted four weeks to file an appeal, with the Appellate Authority directed to adjudicate without objections on limitation [Paras 13-14, 23].

Interim Relief – Extension of Stay Period – Since the Court had granted ad-interim relief on 20/09/2022, it was extended for four weeks to allow the petitioner to seek a stay before the appropriate authority – The Appellate Authority must decide the stay application on its own merits, uninfluenced by the Court’s observations [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner granted four weeks to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority – Ad-interim relief extended for four weeks – The Court held that all issues, including jurisdiction under Section 147, validity of reassessment, and alleged audit-based reopening, can be raised before the Appellate Authority – No findings were given on the merits of the reassessment [Paras 23-27].

Criminal Writ - Criminal Investigation – Direction for Crime Branch Investigation – Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India – Investigation Ordered – The petitioner alleged fraud and coercion by police officials, stating that despite multiple complaints, no action was taken – The petitioner and his wife were allegedly abducted and subjected to harassment – The Court examined the sequence of events, including alleged police misconduct and threats – Held: Considering the severity of the allegations and the failure of the local police to act, the case was referred to the Crime Branch for investigation [Paras 2-5].

Police Misconduct – Non-Registration of FIR – Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Violation of Legal Procedure – The petitioner had repeatedly approached law enforcement agencies, but the FIR was not registered – The lower court directed registration under BNSS, 2023, but police failed to act – Held: Non-compliance with judicial orders and failure to register FIR constitutes willful disobedience and dereliction of duty by police officers – The matter was directed for departmental inquiry against responsible officers [Paras 6-8].

Fundamental Rights – Illegal Detention and Harassment – Articles 226 & 227 – Compensation Ordered – The petitioner and his wife were allegedly detained and harassed by police under instructions from senior officials – The Court considered the impact of police excesses on the petitioner’s family, including medical complications faced by their minor daughter – Held: State directed to pay interim compensation to the petitioner and ensure psychological counseling for affected family members [Paras 9-11].

Judicial Intervention – High Court’s Power Under Article 226 – Scope and Limitations – The petitioner sought direct intervention by the High Court for relief – The Court reiterated that while the High Court does not interfere in every criminal case, exceptional circumstances warrant such intervention – Held: Given the abuse of power and lack of police action, the High Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to ensure justice [Paras 12-14].

Order of Lower Court – Non-Compliance by Police – Contempt Proceedings Initiated – Despite judicial directions, the police failed to act on the order of the JMFC-II, Bhubaneswar, under Section 175(3) BNSS, 2023 – Held: This amounts to contempt of court – Show-cause notice issued to responsible officers, and matter referred to the State’s Home Department for necessary action [Paras 15-17].