Bail Application – Serious Charges – Applicant accused under various sections of IPC, Arms Act, and Maharashtra Police Act, including sexual assault and threats – Allegations include forcible intercourse, physical abuse, forced abortion, and threats of violence – Bail application filed after prolonged custody [Paras 1-2].

Delay in Reporting – Consensual Relationship Defense – Applicant claims consensual relationship and delay in FIR filing indicates fabrication – Court examines material evidence and statements of witnesses, including threats and abuse during pregnancy [Paras 3-6, 9-15].

Witness Credibility – Statements by first informant, relatives, and associates support allegations – Statements include descriptions of physical and sexual abuse, financial exploitation, and miscarriage caused by assault – WhatsApp conversations corroborate threats and exploitation [Paras 11-14].

Risk of Flight and Threats – Applicant attempted to escape custody – Concerns about applicant’s potential to flee and threats to the informant and her family – Court emphasizes risk and refuses bail considering severity of allegations and risk factors [Paras 7, 15].

Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Court finds overwhelming material against the applicant – Clarifies observations are for bail determination and not indicative of guilt or innocence – Case to proceed to trial [Paras 16, ORDER].

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Conviction and Sentencing – Petitioner convicted under Sections 279, 337, and 304-A IPC for causing a fatal accident while driving a tanker in a rash and negligent manner. Trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and fines. Conviction and sentence upheld by appellate court, leading to the filing of the present revision petition​​.

Evidence – Witness Identification and Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Absence of TIP does not invalidate witness identification during trial. Multiple witnesses, including the Matador driver, identified the petitioner. Evidence found reliable and trustworthy despite minor inconsistencies​​.

Defective Investigation – Impact on Conviction – Defective investigation does not automatically entitle the accused to acquittal. Independent scrutiny of evidence determines reliability. Non-examination of certain witnesses like the mechanic considered a procedural lapse that did not materially affect the prosecution's case​​.

Sentencing – Consideration of Age and Probation – Court refused to modify sentence or grant probation based on petitioner's age, emphasizing strict punishment for motor vehicle accidents causing death. Petitioner had only served 29 days of sentence, considered too lenient for the offense committed​​.

Decision: Revision petition dismissed, conviction and sentence upheld. Compliance and information dissemination directed to concerned trial court and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palwal​​.

Family Law – Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Appellant sought divorce alleging respondent’s disinterest in marriage, extra-marital relationship, and repeated desertion – Family Court dismissed petition citing lack of specific evidence and hearsay nature of allegations – Appellant’s claims of respondent’s cruelty and desertion found unsubstantiated – Appeal dismissed, upholding Family Court’s decision [Paras 1-32].

Specific Allegations and Evidence – Requirement of Specific Evidence – Appellant’s allegations of cruelty included respondent’s statements about disinterest in marriage, maintaining a relationship with another person, and threats of suicide – Claims based on hearsay, with no direct witness testimony or corroborative evidence – Appellant failed to produce crucial witnesses, including parents and panchayat members [Paras 4-15, 19-20].

Previous Petition – Res Judicata – Bar on Fresh Petition – Previous divorce petition filed by appellant dismissed for non-prosecution – Instant petition for same relief on same grounds deemed barred by law – Legal principle of res judicata applicable [Para 24].

Respondent’s Willingness to Reconcile – Evidence – Testimonies indicated respondent’s willingness to continue marital relationship – Appellant’s witnesses corroborated respondent’s willingness and appellant’s refusal to reconcile – Compromise agreement (Ext. R-1) signed by appellant admitted wrongful doubts about respondent’s character [Paras 18, 23, 28-29].

Compromise Agreement and Judicial Findings – Compromise agreement evidenced appellant’s apology and undertaking not to ill-treat respondent – Family Court noted appellant’s failure to prove allegations of cruelty and desertion – Findings from complaint under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act and maintenance awarded to respondent also considered [Paras 21-23, 30].

Judgment of Family Court – Affirmation – Family Court’s findings regarding lack of specific allegations and hearsay evidence upheld – No direct or circumstantial evidence of alleged extra-marital relationship – Previous judicial findings and compromise agreement noted – Appeal found to lack merit and dismissed [Paras 13-32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No costs – Pending applications also disposed of.

Evidence – Reliability of Victim’s Testimony – Victim alleged rape by the appellant; initial FIR filed on the basis of the victim’s written report. During the trial, discrepancies arose between the victim’s written report and her oral testimony, including the sequence of events and identification of the appellant. The court found significant inconsistencies and a lack of corroborative evidence to support the prosecution’s case beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 3-14, 36].

Medical Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Medical examination of the victim did not reveal injuries consistent with recent sexual assault; forensic evidence was found unreliable due to mishandling and discrepancies in the description of the seized items. The prosecution’s failure to properly conserve and timely dispatch evidence to the forensic laboratory further weakened the case [Paras 16-25, 37].

Land Dispute Motive – Defence argued that the accusation was motivated by an existing land dispute between the appellant and the victim’s family. Testimonies indicated long-standing litigation, adding credence to the possibility of a false allegation. The prosecution failed to investigate or rebut this motive, leading to reasonable doubt [Paras 5, 35].

Application of Sections 29 and 30 POCSO Act – The court noted the prosecution’s failure to invoke the presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which could have shifted the burden of proof to the accused. Given the doubts raised, the court did not find it appropriate to apply these presumptions [Paras 40].

Investigation Lapses – The court criticized the investigation for not thoroughly exploring the context of the allegations, including potential motivations and inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony. The investigator’s omissions significantly impacted the credibility of the prosecution’s case [Paras 34, 39].

Decision- The conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all charges due to the prosecution’s failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court ordered the appellant’s immediate release from jail if not detained in any other case [Paras 41-45].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Petitioner Biplab Jana @ Rohit sought quashing of proceedings in Marishda Police Station Case No. 148 of 2015, charged under Sections 306/34 IPC for abetment of suicide – Allegations included continuous harassment and attempted molestation leading to the victim’s suicide – The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated due to political rivalry and cited torture by the victim’s maternal uncle and aunt – Court found insufficient evidence to sustain charges, noting inconsistencies in testimonies and lack of direct instigation – Petitioner’s claim of a consensual relationship with the victim and conflicting reports in local newspapers considered – Proceedings against petitioner quashed due to absence of prima facie case [Paras 1-28].

Reinvestigation Request – Judicial Review – De-facto complainant’s request for reinvestigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. dismissed by the trial court as the trial had commenced – High Court examined whether the rejection of reinvestigation was justified – No new substantial evidence found to warrant reinvestigation – Emphasized principles for allowing additional investigations requiring new material facts and the necessity of a reasoned decision by authorities [Paras 11-13, 29-30].

Procedural Deficiencies – Abuse of Process – Court highlighted the lack of corroborative evidence against the petitioner and mechanical submission of the charge sheet by the investigating officer – Criticized the failure to properly investigate the call records and SMS which were vital for establishing the alleged harassment – Emphasized that vague allegations without supporting evidence cannot constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC – Continuation of proceedings against petitioner deemed abuse of judicial process – Cited case law on necessary elements for abetment to suicide, stressing the need for clear evidence of instigation [Paras 19-25, 23-24].

Decision:

• Writ Petition CRR 1548 of 2017: Dismissed – De-facto complainant’s request for reinvestigation rejected as infructuous.
• Writ Petition CRR 4134 of 2015: Allowed – Proceedings in Marishda Police Station Case No. 148 of 2015 quashed against petitioner Biplab Jana @ Rohit.
• Orders: Interim orders vacated, case diary returned, parties to act on server copies of order.

Kerala Police Act – Section 119(1)(a) – Quashing of Proceedings –

Petition to quash proceedings under Section 119(1)(a) of the Kerala Police Act for alleged sexual gestures in public degrading the dignity of women – Accused’s actions not specified in FIR or Final Report – No evidence of discernible sexual gestures – Court found the prosecution case to be meritless – Proceedings quashed [Paras 1-8].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Inherent Powers – Quashing Proceedings –

High Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings lacking material evidence – Importance of specificity in charges for offenses involving sexual gestures – Directed dissemination of order to all Station House Officers in the State for adherence [Paras 7-8].

Decision:

Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed – All further proceedings pursuant to the FIR and Final Report in Crime No. 2539/2023 of Attingal Police Station, pending as C.C. No. 45/2024 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Attingal, quashed – Registry directed to forward a copy of this order to the Director General of Police for dissemination to all Station House Officers.

Criminal Law – Tampering of Recruitment Documents – Petitioner allegedly tampered with recruitment examination records to secure the post of Sub Inspector of Police – Utilized forged documents to move Central Administrative Tribunal for appointment – Complaint registered for offences under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of IPC – Final report filed and taken on record by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry – Petitioner seeks quashing of final report claiming lawful appointment and subsequent promotions [Paras 1-10].

Procedure under RTI Act – Fabrication of Documents – Petitioner obtained information through RTI, allegedly by manipulating records to show higher marks – Investigation revealed access to and tampering of examination documents – Statements of witnesses indicated involvement in furnishing false information [Paras 2-7].

Judicial Review – Prima Facie Case – High Court finds sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with trial – Dismisses petition to quash final report, emphasizing need for full-fledged trial to uncover truth – Cites Vishnu Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh to highlight protection against vexatious prosecution not applicable here [Paras 8-11].

Decision – Criminal Original Petition Dismissed – Held – Material collected during investigation supports proceeding with charges – Petition dismissed, Miscellaneous Petitions closed [Para 11].

Superannuation Pension – Effective Date of Pension – Retired employees of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank challenged the date from which they were granted superannuation pension – Petitioners argued for pension commencement from the next day of their retirement, citing anomalies in the pension regulations and Supreme Court rulings – Court found regulations binding, noted petitioners had agreed to terms by opting into the pension scheme – Writ petition dismissed without costs [Paras 1-39].

Regulations – Pension Regulations Formation – Petitioners claimed anomalies in the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 2018 – Court held regulations were properly formed in consultation with stakeholders and approved by NABARD and the Central Government – Emphasized petitioners’ acceptance of the terms by refunding corpus to the Pension Fund [Paras 6-37].

Legal Precedents – Parity with Sponsor Banks – Court referenced various rulings on pension parity between Regional Rural Banks and Nationalized Commercial Banks – Affirmed the regulatory process and compliance with Supreme Court directives on pension parity – Regulations found consistent with legal standards [Paras 33-37].

Constitutional Challenge – Articles 14, 21, 300A – Petitioners claimed regulations violated their rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution – Court found no merit in claims, stating regulations were uniformly applied and petitioners were not deprived of due process or property without law [Paras 9-28, 36].

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – Court upheld the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 2018 – No order as to costs – Connected applications disposed of [Para 39].

Bail Petition – Regular Bail – Petitioner previously filed bail petitions both before Sessions Judge and the High Court – Contention for bail based on long custody, completion of investigation, and lack of possibility to influence witnesses – Court emphasizes previous criminal antecedents and substantial quantity of heroin found – Petitioner’s custody not considered a sufficient change in circumstance warranting bail [Paras 1-10].

Rejection of Subsequent Bail Application – Requirement of Substantial Change – Reference to Supreme Court decisions – Subsequent bail applications must show a substantial change in circumstances affecting the earlier decision – Daily custody not a significant change to warrant bail [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No substantial change in circumstances to warrant release on bail – Petitioner to remain in custody [Paras 9-10].