Constitutional Law – Right to Life and Liberty – Couple Seeking Protection – Petitioners, a married couple, approached the court seeking protection from threats posed by family members opposing their marriage – Held, the right to choose a partner is protected under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution – Court emphasized the duty of the state to ensure the protection of individuals exercising their autonomy – Directed police authorities to provide necessary protection – Established mechanism for expeditious handling of such cases [Paras 1-27].

Police Accountability – Judicial Oversight – Police authorities have constitutional and statutory obligations to protect citizens – Court criticized the lack of compliance with Supreme Court guidelines on police accountability – Emphasized the need for strict adherence to directives ensuring police action is free from external influences – Recommended establishment of Police Complaints Authority as per Supreme Court directions [Paras 23-28].

Decision:

Writ Petition Allowed – Court directed the police authorities to ensure the protection of the petitioners – Emphasized the need for mechanisms to prevent police inaction or collusion – Recommended the establishment of online systems for filing and expeditious processing of protection requests – Ordered strict compliance with constitutional mandates to protect the autonomy and rights of individuals against extra-legal threats.

Administrative Law – Reinstatement and Appointment Process – Petitioner challenged his removal from the post of Panchayat Teacher and sought quashing of the appointment of Respondent No. 10 – Petitioner initially appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, later converted to Panchayat Teacher under the 2006 Rules – Complaint by Respondent No. 10 led to the cancellation of petitioner’s appointment by the District Magistrate, later upheld by the Tribunal – Interim stay by the High Court, final order quashed Tribunal’s decision – Panchayat Secretary’s misinterpretation and subsequent actions to favor Respondent No. 10 criticized – Decision for removal and appointment declared illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable [Paras 1-34].

Jurisdiction and Procedural Irregularities – Court found that the Panchayat Secretary and Employment Unit overreached the High Court’s final order by misinterpreting it and implementing the Tribunal’s quashed order – Highlighted the procedural deficiencies and contumacious conduct of the Panchayat Secretary [Paras 16-23, 28-29].

Rights Under Employment Rules – Petitioner’s right to continue as Panchayat Teacher upheld under the 2006 Rules – Reinstatement ordered without back wages – Emphasis on compliance with statutory procedures and fair administrative practices [Paras 27, 31-32].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Orders of the Selection Committee and Panchayat Secretary set aside – Appointment of Respondent No. 10 quashed – Petitioner to be reinstated as Panchayat Teacher within two months without back wages [Paras 30-34].

Limitation Act – Application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC – Petition for Rejection of Plaint – Suit for recovery of cost of repair and penalty for non-performance of contract filed beyond the statutory period – Petitioner contends suit is barred by limitation – Trial court rejected petition on grounds of mixed questions of law and fact requiring trial – High Court examines statutory obligations, mixed questions of law and fact, and evidentiary requirements – Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Trial court’s decision upheld [Paras 1-7.15].

Mixed Questions of Law and Fact – Order VII, Rule 11 CPC – Jurisdiction – High Court reiterates jurisdictional scope of courts under Order VII, Rule 11 – Emphasizes that the question of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be decided solely on plaint averments but requires trial – Reaffirms principles for rejection of plaints under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC [Paras 7.1-7.15].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Held – Order dated 30.03.2022 by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Balangir upheld – Suit to proceed to trial for determination of mixed questions of law and fact including limitation – Petitioner’s argument for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC on limitation grounds not sustained [Para 7.15].
 

Electoral Law – Misuse of Reserved Category Benefits – Petitioner attempted to secure reserved category benefits by assuming a deceased individual’s identity. The scrutiny committee cancelled the caste certificate after investigation. The High Court upheld the scrutiny committee’s decision, finding no procedural errors or omissions in their consideration of evidence, including statements from family members and documentary evidence. The court stressed the necessity of genuine documentation for reserved category certification and the scrutiny committee’s role in ensuring its authenticity [Paras 1-22].

Judicial Review – Scrutiny Committee’s Decision – The court emphasized that judicial review differs from appellate jurisdiction, and the High Court’s role is not to re-evaluate evidence but to ensure the committee considered all relevant facts. The committee’s decision is upheld unless found perverse or unreasonable [Paras 10, 15, 20].

Evidence and Documentation – Authenticity and Reliability – The court found discrepancies in the petitioner’s documents, including the death certificate and school leaving certificate, undermining their credibility. The scrutiny committee’s rejection of these documents was deemed appropriate [Paras 10-14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Scrutiny committee’s cancellation of the caste certificate upheld – No costs [Paras 22-23].

Trade Marks – Jurisdiction and Authority – Appeals under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against orders passed by Associate Managers of Trade Marks – Issue of whether Associate Managers have the authority to pass quasi-judicial orders – Appellant contended that Associate Managers were neither authorized under the law nor competent to pass such orders [Paras 1-5].

Delegation of Powers – Interpretation of Section 3 of Trade Marks Act – Appellant argued that Associate Managers were appointed on a contractual basis and lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate matters after their contractual period ended – Court emphasized that the Registrar of Trade Marks must delegate functions to properly appointed officers – Associate Managers’ appointments were found to be inconsistent with the legal framework, lacking continuous authorization [Paras 6-27].

Quasi-Judicial Powers – Assessment of Competency – Court assessed whether quasi-judicial functions could be delegated to Associate Managers – Emphasized that quasi-judicial functions require independent exercise of judgment, not subject to superintendence or direction – Determined that administrative powers can be delegated, but not quasi-judicial powers [Paras 28-37].

Decision – Orders Passed by Associate Managers Set Aside – Held that Associate Managers were not empowered to pass quasi-judicial orders – Impugned orders dated 16^th September 2023 and 6^th October 2023 were quashed – Matters remanded to Registrar, Trade Marks to be decided afresh by a competent officer within six months [Paras 38-41].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Petitioners sought to quash the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, directing police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the subsequent criminal proceedings – Dispute arising from termination of a contract and allegations of non-payment and withholding of machinery – Held: Dispute is civil in nature, arising from a contract, with no prima facie case of criminal intent – Reliance on the law requiring judicial mind in orders under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. emphasized – Entire criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 2-24].

Application of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Judicial Application of Mind – Court noted failure to apply judicial mind in the Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Reference made to precedents underscoring the necessity of clear judicial reasoning in such orders [Paras 6, 16-18].

Nature of Dispute – Civil vs. Criminal – Court stressed that disputes purely civil in nature, especially those involving contractual obligations, should not be pursued through criminal proceedings – Previous legal actions under the MSME Act noted, reinforcing the civil nature of the dispute [Paras 9, 19-23].

Decision: Petition allowed – Entire criminal proceeding, including the order for investigation and FIR, quashed – Court emphasized the inappropriate use of criminal law for resolving a civil dispute – Pending civil proceedings under the MSME Act to continue independently [Paras 24-26].

Execution of Consent Decree – Transfer of Property – Petitioners sought enforcement of a consent decree involving transfer of office space and alleged improper compliance by respondents – Property transferred for Rs. 1001/- when valued over 2 crores – Tax liability on transfer under Section 50-C of the Income Tax Act disputed – Court found respondents failed to comply with prior orders and provide necessary undertakings – Held that executing court cannot impose tax liability contrary to statutory provisions [Paras 1-23.1].

Undertaking by Counsel – Binding Nature – Previous counsel’s undertaking regarding tax liability not honored by respondents – Court emphasized that such undertakings must align with statutory provisions – Court highlighted procedural irregularities in representation and contradictions by respondents [Paras 17-23.1].

Simultaneous Compliance of Decree Terms – Court noted that terms of the consent decree should be performead simultaneously to avoid complications – Lack of joint compliance undermines the intent of the decree [Paras 18-22].

Decision – Application dismissed – Held – Executing court cannot direct parties to shoulder tax responsibility contrary to Income Tax Act – Petitioners’ additional factual claims require evidence – Petition dismissed without costs [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Rape and Kidnapping – Accused convicted of kidnapping a minor girl and committing rape – Trial court’s judgment upheld by High Court with partial modifications – Appeal mainly contested on grounds of unreliable evidence and improper conviction under special statutes – High Court affirms conviction under IPC, sets aside conviction under SC/ST Act and JJ Act due to lack of specific intent to commit crime based on caste and lack of legal control over the victim [Paras 1-32].

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Requirement of Proof of Caste-based Offense – High Court sets aside conviction under Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act – Prosecution failed to prove that the offense was committed due to the victim’s caste – Emphasizes that mere membership of the victim in a Scheduled Caste is insufficient to attract these sections without proof of specific intent [Paras 21-28].

Juvenile Justice Act – Actual Control Requirement – Conviction under Section 23 of the JJ Act set aside – Court highlights that the accused must have actual charge or control over the child to be convicted under this section – Accused did not have such control over the victim in this case [Paras 29-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part. Conviction under SC/ST Act and JJ Act set aside. Conviction under IPC upheld. Court grants liberty to appellant to seek state government remission of sentence considering mitigating factors and time already served [Para 32].

Criminal Law – Murder and Conspiracy – The appellants were convicted for the murder of Divakaran, sustaining injuries on his family members, and vandalizing his property – Convictions by the Additional Sessions Court affirmed by the High Court – The High Court emphasizes discrepancies in the investigation and procedural flaws, particularly regarding the involvement and identification of all accused – Despite this, the Court finds the evidence provided by eyewitnesses, especially close relatives of the deceased, credible, noting their consistency in key details across multiple statements [Paras 1-26].

Investigation Flaws – The Court criticizes the initial investigation conducted by PW18 and PW21, noting their bias and failure to arrest key accused timely – Statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. played a crucial role in correctly identifying all involved parties – The High Court highlights the importance of a thorough and unbiased investigation, stressing that faulty investigation should not undermine credible evidence [Paras 27-41].

Witness Credibility – Eyewitnesses, particularly the family members of the deceased, provided consistent testimonies regarding the sequence of events, the involvement of all six accused, and their actions during the crime – The Court underscores the reliability of these witnesses despite the hostile environment and procedural issues faced during the investigation [Paras 10-25].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – High Court reiterates the necessity of proper investigation and unbiased judicial process – Grants liberty to appellants to seek remission of sentence considering mitigating factors and time already served [Para 42-44].