Criminal Law – Dishonor of Cheque – Sections 138, 139 NI Act – Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. – Legally enforceable debt – Presumption in favor of holder – Failure to reply to legal notice – Accused's failure to respond to legal notice does not automatically assume acceptance of liability – Held: Presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable – Accused successfully rebutted presumption by raising doubt about financial capacity and existence of debt – Conviction and sentence set aside. [Paras 1-27]

Financial Capacity and Burden of Proof – Legal Notice – Section 138, 139 NI Act – Failure of complainant to prove financial capacity to lend amount in question – Burden shifts to complainant to show transaction and enforceable debt – Discrepancies in complainant's evidence regarding capacity and absence of proof of income – Accused's denial and plausible explanation sufficient to rebut statutory presumption. [Paras 4-25]

Decision – Acquittal – Conviction and sentence under Sections 138, 139 NI Act set aside – Accused acquitted – Complainant failed to establish pre-existing liability and financial capacity – Burden of proof not discharged by complainant. [Paras 26-28]

Criminal Law – Unnatural Offence and Aggravated Sexual Assault – Sections 377 IPC and 10 POCSO Act – Conviction based on minor victim’s testimony – Section 377 attracted where penetration occurs on any part of the body, predominant intent must be sexual – Absence of external injury marks on the victim’s body not sufficient to disprove the offence – Victim’s young age and inability to resist due to overpowering by older boys considered – Held: Conviction upheld as the absence of injury does not negate the offence – Testimony of the child reliable and credible. [Paras 1-27, 30-32]

Child Testimony – Credibility – Assessment – Section 377 IPC and 10 POCSO Act – Victim’s testimony considered credible despite absence of corroborative medical evidence – Courts emphasize the reliability and trustworthiness of the child’s account – Judicial precedence supports reliance on child testimony if it is convincing and consistent – Prosecution not required to establish violent resistance for offence under these sections. [Paras 13, 19-20, 27-29]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – Petition dismissed – Courts below rightly convicted the petitioners for offences under Sections 377 IPC and 10 POCSO Act – The judgment found valid, legal, and in accordance with the law without any perversity. [Paras 33, 37]

Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint – Civil Revision against Trial Court's Order dismissing application for rejection of suit under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC – Suit challenging decree dated 20.05.1986 alleging fraud and claiming coparcenary rights under amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act – High Court holds no existing coparcenary post-severance of shares in 1986 decree – Ingredients of fraud not specifically pleaded – Held, the suit is barred as the cause of action is illusory and vexatious – Trial Court's order set aside, application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC allowed, plaint rejected. [Paras 1-7]

Hindu Succession Act - Coparcenary Rights – Analysis – Held – Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act confers coparcenary rights to daughters from 25.12.2004 – Decree of 1986 resulted in severance of coparcenary status – No coparcenary existed post-1986 for the plaintiff to claim rights – Claims of fraud unsubstantiated as per Order VI, Rule 4 CPC. [Para 4-5]

Decision – Rejection of Suit – Court finds the trial court's dismissal of the application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC unsustainable – Suit dismissed as it does not disclose a cause of action – Petition allowed, plaint rejected. [Para 7]

Criminal Law – Abetment to Suicide – Sections 34, 306 IPC – Petition to Quash FIR – Alleged abetment by threats in February 2019, suicide in May 2019 – Necessity of proximate and live link between threats and suicide – No evidence of contact or threats post-February 2019 – FIR quashed as no direct or indirect act of instigation proven. [Paras 1-27]

Abetment Requirements – Legal Standards – Section 306 IPC – Section 107 IPC – Abetment requires intention and direct act to instigate or aid suicide – Mere mention in suicide note insufficient without evidence of instigation – Precedents emphasize mens rea and proximate cause – Petition allowed, FIR quashed. [Paras 12-26]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Subsequent Proceedings – Petition allowed – FIR No. 62 dated 16.05.2019 under Sections 306 and 34 IPC quashed along with subsequent proceedings including the report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Absence of live link between alleged threats and suicide, no mens rea or direct instigation established. [Paras 26-27]

Constitutional Law – Premature Release of Convict – Articles 14, 226 – IPC Sections 302, 452, 34 – Cr.P.C. Sections 432, 433 – Conviction post-policy change – Determination of applicable policy for premature release – Policy at the time of conviction to be applied – Policy dated 13.08.2008 applicable for conviction in 2009, superseding earlier policy dated 12.04.2002 – Held: Policy prevalent at the time of conviction governs premature release – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-14]

Statutory Interpretation – Policy Supersession – Premature Release – Policy dated 13.08.2008 supersedes policy dated 12.04.2002 – Policy issued under statutory provisions of Cr.P.C. has statutory force – Supreme Court precedent affirms applicability of policy at time of conviction – Petitioner's argument for application of earlier policy without merit. [Paras 4-13]

Decision – Premature Release Denied – Petition dismissed – Impugned orders upheld as they correctly applied the policy in force at the time of conviction – Policy dated 13.08.2008 considered appropriate for cases post-2008. [Paras 12-14]

Partition Law – Mode of Partition – Civil Revision Petition against the trial court's order rejecting the Local Commissioner’s report and appointing a new Local Commissioner – Trial court’s action of reopening the determination of ownership shares and inviting evidence on the same issue – Held, improper and contrary to established legal principles – Trial court directed to proceed with the Local Commissioner’s report and finalize the decree without disturbing the possession of any other co-sharer unless they have made a specific request for partition – Fresh suit for partition suggested for respondents desiring separate possession. [Paras 1-10]

Determination of Ownership Shares – Analysis – Trial court's error in reopening the determination of ownership shares and possession for respondent No. 1 – Held – Preliminary decree already determined petitioner’s share – No other co-sharer, including respondent No. 1, made any claim for separation of their shares – Partition proceedings to be limited to granting possession to the petitioner without reopening ownership issues. [Paras 5-10]

Final Decree Proceedings – Process and Limitations – Held – Final decree preparation is a ministerial act focused on implementing the preliminary decree – Judicial adjudication is limited to ancillary issues – Court below’s action in reframing issues for ownership and possession at this stage is improper – Reliance on Supreme Court judgment in Shub Karan Bubna vs. Sita Saran Bubna emphasized. [Para 8]

Decision – Order of Trial Court Set Aside – Revision petition allowed – Direction to proceed with Local Commissioner’s report for preparation of final decree – Possession to be handed over to the petitioner as per his entitlement. [Para 10]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Sections 420, 120-B IPC – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner, a deed writer, accused in a case involving a fraudulent agreement to sell – Petitioner not a party to the sale – Alleged transaction involved misrepresentation by sellers – Held: Anticipatory bail granted as custodial interrogation not required – Questions regarding the purchaser's duty to verify title and petitioner's role to be determined at trial. [Paras 1-10]

Involvement in Fraud – Role of Deed Writer – Petitioner alleged to have taken commission and written the fraudulent deed – Responsibility to verify title lies with the purchaser – Delay in FIR registration and existence of compromise suggest non-requirement of custodial interrogation – Anticipatory bail appropriate. [Paras 3-8]

Decision – Grant of Anticipatory Bail – Petitions allowed – Petitioners granted anticipatory bail with conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation – State may seek cancellation if petitioners fail to cooperate. [Paras 8-10]

Education Law - Revaluation and Grace Marks - MBBS Examination - LPA challenging denial of grace marks and revaluation request - National Medical Commission Regulations and University Ordinance - Appellant's failure in two subjects - Held, university can award up to 5 grace marks only if the student has failed in one subject and passed all others. - In this case, appellant failed in two subjects, making her ineligible for grace marks. - Ordinance of the university explicitly denies revaluation of MBBS examinations. - Appeal dismissed, confirming the writ court's decision rejecting the appellant's claims for grace marks and revaluation​​.

Grace Marks – Appellant challenged the rejection of her request for awarding grace marks and re-evaluation of her MBBS examination papers – High Court held that the University can grant a maximum of 5 grace marks to a student who has failed in only one subject, provided the student has passed in all other subjects – Appellant failed in two subjects and was therefore ineligible for grace marks as per the National Medical Commission Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 and University Ordinance [Paras 1-3, 9-14].

Re-evaluation – Appellant sought re-evaluation of her examination papers by an independent examiner – High Court noted that the University Ordinance explicitly prohibits re-evaluation of answer books for MBBS and other medical examinations – The request for re-evaluation was denied, and the claim of arbitrary and unjustified treatment by the University was found to be without merit [Paras 4-6, 15-18].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – The appeal is dismissed as the appellant's requests for grace marks and re-evaluation were unsupported by the governing regulations and ordinances – The allegations of malafide against University faculty were found unsubstantiated and irrelevant to the legal provisions governing the case [Paras 17, 19-20].

Juvenile Justice – Bail – Section 12 JJ Act – Bail to Juvenile Rule, Exceptions Narrow – Juvenile in conflict with law entitled to bail unless falling under specific exceptions – No specific role or injury attributed to appellant – Appellant in custody since 24.07.2019 – Trial likely to be prolonged – Co-accused granted bail – Held: Bail granted to juvenile appellant. [Paras 1-15]

Juvenile Justice – Statutory Interpretation – Section 12 JJ Act – Bail is a rule, denial only in exceptional circumstances – Court must explicitly consider exceptions under Section 12 JJ Act – Non-consideration of statutory provisions by lower court erroneous – Appellant’s case not covered by statutory exceptions – Grant of bail justified. [Paras 8-14]

Decision – Bail Granted – Appeal allowed – Lower court order set aside – Appellant directed to be released on bail subject to conditions – Directions for expeditious trial. [Paras 15-16]