Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Appeal filed by the State against the trial court's judgment acquitting the respondent of charges under Sections 307, 452, and 506 IPC – Prosecution’s case centered on the respondent’s alleged knife attack on the injured with intent to cause death – Trial court acquitted the accused, noting discrepancies in witness statements, lack of evidence regarding motive, and failure to explain injuries sustained by the accused – Appeal dismissed as trial court’s view was found to be a plausible conclusion based on the evidence [Paras 1-75].

Attempt to Murder – Evidentiary Gaps – Prosecution failed to explain multiple injuries sustained by the accused, leading to doubts regarding the sequence of events – Presence of blood-stained weapons without any blood found on the accused’s knives also raised suspicion – Material contradictions in witness testimonies, particularly about the presence of key witnesses at the crime scene, further weakened the prosecution's case [Paras 40-60].

Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases – Established legal principles reiterated that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if prosecution evidence is weak and contradictory – Trial court’s assessment that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt upheld by the High Court [Paras 65-75].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld.

Civil Procedure – Partition Suit – Remand – Appeal challenging the remand order in a partition suit where the trial court's judgment was set aside by the District Judge due to non-impleadment of necessary parties and failure to afford them the opportunity to file written statements – High Court upheld the remand order, noting that the impleaded legal representatives were entitled to submit additional written statements appropriate to their status as legal representatives – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-35].

Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI, Rule 17 CPC – Application for amendment of the written statement was rejected by the trial court for being belated, but the High Court observed that proposed amendments were of a clarificatory nature and legally valid – Amendment should have been allowed to determine the real controversy [Paras 20-25].

Right to File Written Statement by Legal Representatives – Legal representatives of deceased parties should be allowed to file written statements to defend themselves, but without raising inconsistent pleas – Trial court's refusal to permit this was erroneous, leading to the remand order being justified [Paras 30-35].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Remand order upheld – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings within four months.
 

Criminal Law – Rape Allegation – Prima Facie Evidence for Charge Framing – The State argued that the Trial Court erred by discharging the accused, despite statements from the victim suggesting lack of consent – High Court held that at the charge-framing stage, courts need only ascertain prima facie evidence rather than engage in credibility assessments – Held: Victim's statements supported grave suspicion of non-consensual sexual act; discharge order set aside, charges to be framed [Paras 5-9, 16-20].

Evidence Assessment – Consent and Immediate Reporting by Victim – Respondent’s argument cited consensual room booking and hotel entry; however, victim’s immediate complaint and crying behavior post-incident supported allegations – High Court emphasized that prior consensual actions do not imply consent for sexual intercourse – Held: Prima facie evidence indicated coercion, warranting trial [Paras 14-18].

Legal Standard at Charge Stage – Role of Forensic Evidence – Subsequent forensic report confirmed semen presence on victim’s clothing, corroborating her statement – High Court reiterated that full penetration is unnecessary to substantiate rape charges, and forensic evidence strengthened case for framing charges [Para 23].

Decision:

The revision application is allowed. The discharge order is quashed, and the Trial Court is directed to frame charges against the respondent under Sections 376 and 506(ii) IPC.

CPC – Application for amendment of the reply to the eviction petition filed ten years after the original reply was dismissed by the Rent Controller – Held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence or any new discovery of facts that justified the amendment at such a late stage – The objections sought to be added were already covered in the original reply, making the amendment unnecessary – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 4-5].
Liberal Approach to Amendment – Not Applicable – Petitioner’s reliance on precedents advocating a liberal approach to amendments was misplaced – The proposed amendment did not meet the requirement of due diligence, and the issues were already framed based on the existing reply – Rent Controller's refusal to allow the amendment upheld [Paras 4(d)-5].
Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Parties directed to appear before the Rent Controller.
 

Public Employment – Selection Process – The petition seeks quashing of 10 marks allocated for personal interviews in the 'Van Mitra' recruitment under the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department – The Court held that the incorporation of interview marks was without expert body recommendations or valid reasoning – Noted that the State's earlier notification in 2017 abolished interviews for Class-III and IV posts, and the deviation in the 'Van Mitra' scheme was arbitrary and unjustified – Held that personal interview marks must be struck down from the selection criteria​.

Legitimate Expectation – Promissory Estoppel – The petitioner contended that the 2017 notification created a legitimate expectation that interviews for junior-level posts would be abolished – The Court agreed, noting that the State had deviated from its commitment without providing sufficient rationale, thus violating the principles of legitimate expectation and fairness​.

Decision: Petition allowed – The allocation of 10 marks for personal interviews in the 'Van Mitra' recruitment scheme is quashed – Selection to proceed without the interview component​.

Civil Procedure – Review Petition – Partition of Properties – Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – The applicants sought a review of the judgment passed in O.S.A. No. 261 of 1995, arguing that the Bishop Garden house and the Bombay furnished flat should not have been considered joint family properties in the partition suit, as they were self-acquired by the applicant – Held: The court found that the inclusion of the properties in paragraph 269 of the original judgment was incorrect and set aside the finding, holding that the Bishop Garden house and the Bombay flat were not part of the joint family properties and should not be included in the partition – The review was allowed, and the properties were excluded from partition [Paras 30-36].

Grounds for Review – Mistake Apparent on the Face of the Record – The court accepted the applicants' contention that paragraph 269 of the common judgment contained errors regarding the ownership of the disputed properties – Held: As the properties were not listed in the schedule of the partition suit and were established as self-acquired by the applicants, the judgment was reviewed to correct the mistake, and the relevant findings were set aside [Paras 12-22].

Decision:

The review application was allowed – Paragraph 269 of the common judgment dated 07.10.1994 in C.S. Nos. 188 of 1972, 366 of 1976, and 442 of 1983 was set aside – The Bishop Garden house and the Bombay flat were excluded from partition proceedings.

Criminal Law – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of defamation charges – Accusations against the petitioners (including the Chief Minister of Delhi) for imputing that BJP had orchestrated deletion of voter names from specific communities – The High Court examined the validity of summoning orders issued by the Magistrate and upheld by the Sessions Court – Court found that the statements made by the petitioners were prima facie defamatory, targeting a determinable and identifiable group (BJP and its Delhi Pradesh unit) – Court emphasized that political parties are identifiable entities under law, capable of being defamed – Held that the allegations against BJP were made without factual basis, potentially swaying public opinion, and harming BJP's reputation – The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. [Paras 14-33].

Defamation Law – Evaluation of Evidence for Defamation – The Court held that even though the initial evidence was derived from newspaper reports and video clippings (generally considered hearsay), it was supported by certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, making it admissible – Summoning orders were based on sufficient prima facie evidence, and the absence of witness testimony at the pre-summoning stage did not invalidate the summoning order – The scope of inquiry under Sections 202 and 204 Cr.P.C. was limited to determining if there was sufficient ground to proceed, not to ascertain the truth of the allegations conclusively – Reliance was placed on precedents that allowed the continuation of defamation proceedings even when initial evidence was not fully established at the pre-summoning stage – Petition dismissed. [Paras 23-26].

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – The High Court dismissed the petition, confirming the maintainability of defamation charges against the petitioners – The Court found that the tweets and public statements made by the petitioners were defamatory, particularly as they accused BJP of engaging in unethical practices without factual support – The petitioners' defense that their statements were made in good faith and for public good was reserved for trial – The Court emphasized that reputation, particularly of political entities, is protected under law, and defamatory imputations without factual basis cannot be shielded under the guise of free speech – The Court directed the continuation of proceedings before the Trial Court. [Paras 32-42].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 420, 506(2), 114 IPC and Sections 3, 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the accused (father-in-law and mother-in-law) under Section 482 CrPC – The complainant filed a case alleging harassment after marriage, but the Court found the allegations to be general and unsubstantiated – The Court held that the complainants had falsely implicated the applicants in order to pressure the family into a settlement – Court observed the applicants, aged 90 and 80, had no involvement in the alleged offences [Paras 1-7, 17].

Abuse of Process – Court found that the FIR was an abuse of the legal process, aimed at harassment rather than the pursuit of justice – Referring to multiple precedents, including Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court emphasized caution in matrimonial disputes, especially when extended family members are implicated without specific evidence – It was noted that the marriage had dissolved via divorce, and there was no substantial proof of harassment against the in-laws [Paras 6-7, 13].

Decision – FIR Quashed – Held – The application under Section 482 CrPC was allowed – The Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners, ruling that their implication in the case was motivated by personal grievances rather than actual evidence of wrongdoing [Paras 15-17].

Taxation Law – Central Sales Tax – Inter-State Sales – The petitioner, a public sector undertaking, entered into an agreement with the Government of Bihar to supply energy food. The Sales Tax Tribunal upheld the assessment of the transactions as inter-state sales liable to tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, despite the petitioner's contention that these were stock transfers and not sales. The Tribunal relied on the principles laid down in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, where it was held that movement of goods pursuant to a contract of sale qualifies as inter-state sales [Paras 8-11].

Sales Tax Tribunal – Misconception in Classification of Transactions – The petitioner argued that sales tax had already been paid in Bihar and U.P., and thus, Haryana could not levy the tax again. The Tribunal rejected this claim, asserting that the payment of local sales tax in other states does not preclude the imposition of Central Sales Tax on inter-state sales [Paras 12-14].

Refund and Double Taxation – In light of Tata Motors Limited v. Central Sales Tax Appellate Authority, the court recognized the issue of double taxation and allowed the petitioner the liberty to seek a refund of the amount already paid to the concerned states. However, the petition was dismissed, upholding the imposition of Central Sales Tax by Haryana [Paras 15-17].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed. The court granted the petitioner the right to claim a refund for taxes paid to other states but upheld the tax demand by Haryana.