Labour Law – Dismissal without Inquiry – Lump Sum Compensation Awarded – The Labour Court awarded Rs. 5,00,000 as lump sum compensation to the dismissed worker who served over 14 years without conducting an inquiry – Held: The Labour Court’s findings were reasoned, and no reinstatement was granted due to the worker's age of superannuation and lapse of 24 years since dismissal – The compensation awarded was upheld with an enhancement of 20% [Paras 7, 12].

Scope of Judicial Review – Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Limited Interference – The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate – Errors of fact cannot be reappreciated unless jurisdictional errors or principles of natural justice are violated – Held: The Labour Court’s order was not palpably erroneous or without jurisdiction, warranting no interference [Paras 8, 12].

Compensation Instead of Reinstatement – Worker’s Long Separation and Superannuation – Referring to precedents, the Court observed that reinstatement with back wages is not automatic in cases of procedural lapses like violation of Section 25-F – Compensation was held as an appropriate relief considering the worker’s age, long separation, and nature of dismissal [Paras 9-10].

Interest on Compensation – Enhancement Awarded – The Court increased the awarded amount by 20% due to delays in payment but reduced the interest rate to 9% per annum for further delays, balancing both parties' conduct [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Both petitions (management and worker) were dismissed – Lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 was upheld with an enhancement of 20%, to be paid within 8 weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum would apply [Paras 14-15].
 

Regular Bail – Delay in Lodging FIR – Custody Duration Considered – Bail Granted – The petitioner sought bail in a case registered four years ago, contending a 10-day delay in lodging the FIR and insufficient evidence linking him to grievous injuries under Section 308 IPC – The petitioner has already undergone seven months and 16 days in custody, and the investigation is complete – No prior criminal record was presented, showing that he is not a habitual offender – The court granted bail, emphasizing the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception [Paras 3-5].

Presumption of Innocence – Overcrowding in Prisons – Article 21 Considerations – Bail Allowed – Emphasizing the constitutional mandate under Article 21 and the Supreme Court’s guidance in cases like Dataram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, the court reiterated that prolonged incarceration of undertrials violates their right to a speedy trial – Held: The petitioner cannot be detained indefinitely, and bail was granted with appropriate conditions [Paras 4-6].

Right to Speedy Trial – Trial Delays Cited – Bail Upheld – With a significant number of pending prosecution witnesses and no immediate likelihood of trial completion, the court held that prolonged custody without conviction is unwarranted – Petition for bail was allowed to prevent undue hardship to the petitioner [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Bail Granted - Petitioner was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The court clarified that this order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case [Para 5].
 

Criminal Law – POCSO and Rape  – Conviction Reversed – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for alleged rape of a minor victim, who later delivered a child – Trial Court relied on the victim's birth certificate and statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC to conclude the victim's minority and convict the accused – High Court held that the prosecution failed to provide conclusive evidence of the victim's age as required under Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Statement under Section 164 CrPC not treated as substantive evidence due to victim turning hostile – Appeal allowed, and conviction set aside [Paras 1–28].

Evidence – Determination of Victim's Age – Procedural Lapse – Prosecution relied on the victim's birth certificate from a panchayat to establish her minority – High Court ruled that, as per Rule 12(3)(a) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, age must be determined hierarchically: matriculation certificate (if available), date of birth certificate from the school first attended, and then the birth certificate issued by a local authority – Victim had studied in school; thus, her school certificate should have been obtained – Prosecution’s failure to collect and present the best evidence undermined its case [Paras 17–23].

Substantive Evidence – Statement Under Section 164 CrPC – Evidentiary Value – High Court reiterated that a statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence but can only be used to corroborate or contradict the witness in court – Victim turned hostile during trial, denying allegations of rape – Trial Court erred in relying on her Section 164 statement as substantive evidence to convict the appellant – Precedents from R. Palanisamy v. State and Pankaj v. State of H.P. followed [Paras 25–27].

Consent and Age – Allegation of Rape – Victim admitted to consensual physical relations with the accused and denied being raped – High Court noted that without clear evidence of the victim's minority, consensual relations could not amount to rape under Section 376 IPC or an offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act – Victim's testimony and that of her mother supported the defense’s claim that she was an adult at the time of the incident [Paras 22–24].

Investigative Directions – Lapses in Evidence Collection – High Court observed procedural lapses by the Investigating Officer in failing to collect proper evidence regarding the victim's age as per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Directed the Director General of Police to ensure compliance with proper procedures in future investigations – Instructions also issued to public prosecutors to verify compliance before trial [Paras 30–33].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – Fine, if deposited, to be refunded – Appellant directed to furnish a bond under Section 437-A CrPC for six months to ensure appearance if further appeal is filed [Paras 28–33].

Divorce by Mutual Agreement – Recognition of Mubara’at – Declaration of Divorce Granted – The appellant sought a declaration of matrimonial status after claiming to have given triple talaq. The matter was resolved through a mubara’at (mutual agreement) dated 15.06.2024, wherein both parties agreed to dissolve the marriage subject to payment of Rs.30,00,000/- by the appellant to the respondent. The Court upheld the validity of mubara’at as a recognized form of mutual divorce under Muslim Personal Law and declared the marriage dissolved. [Paras 8-12]

Scope of Judicial Role in Mubara’at – Limited Inquiry Sufficient – The Court emphasized that in cases of mutual agreement for divorce under mubara’at, the judicial role is limited to verifying the voluntariness and mutual consent of the agreement. No detailed inquiry is required. Once mutuality is established, the marital status must be declared as divorced. [Paras 9-10]

Applicability of Shariat Law – Validity of Extrajudicial Divorce – The Court reiterated that under Muslim Personal Law (Shariat), marriage can be dissolved through mutual consent without judicial intervention, provided the intention of both parties is clear. Mubara’at is one of the recognized modes of dissolution of marriage. The Court relied on precedents including Zohara Khatoon v. Mohd. Ibrahim, (1981) 2 SCC 509, and Asbi K.N. v. Hashim M.U., 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 3945. [Paras 7-9]

Setting Aside Family Court Order – Scope of Family Court Jurisdiction – The Family Court had dismissed the husband’s suit for declaration of marital status at the admission stage on the grounds of procedural deficiencies in the alleged triple talaq. The High Court held that the Family Court erred in dismissing the suit without considering the mubara’at agreement. The Family Court’s order was set aside, and the marital status was declared in light of the mutual agreement. [Paras 13-15]

Decision: The appeal was allowed in terms of the mutual agreement (mubara’at) dated 15.06.2024. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was declared dissolved by mutual consent. The Family Court’s order dated 04.07.2019 dismissing the suit was set aside. The matrimonial status of the parties was declared as "divorced."

Public Servant – Necessity of Sanction for Prosecution – Section 19 of PC Act and Section 197 of CrPC – Charges Quashed – The petitioner, who was the Sarpanch at the time of the alleged offense, was charged under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act, and Sections 409 and 467 IPC, for misappropriation of public funds and forgery in connection with the construction of a public facility – Held: Sections 19 of the PC Act and 197 of CrPC mandate prior prosecution sanction before a court can take cognizance of such offenses committed by a public servant in discharge of official duties – In the absence of such sanction, the trial court's decision to frame charges was unsustainable – Framing of charges against petitioner No. 1 was quashed [Paras 19-23].

Reasonable Connection Between Act and Official Duty – Protection Under Section 197 CrPC – The alleged acts had a direct and reasonable nexus with the discharge of the petitioner’s official duties as Sarpanch, making prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC mandatory – It was established that the alleged acts of forgery and misappropriation were committed in the course of performing official functions, thus falling under the protection afforded by Section 197 CrPC [Paras 17-20].

Prosecution Sanction – Safeguard Against Malicious Prosecution – Section 19 of the PC Act is a legislative safeguard to protect public servants from vexatious or frivolous prosecution – The lack of prosecution sanction rendered the proceedings against the petitioner invalid, barring the trial court from framing charges or proceeding further [Paras 21-23].

Decision – Revision petition was partly allowed – Framing of charges against petitioner No. 1 (Kesar Singh) quashed for want of prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 of CrPC – Dismissed as withdrawn with respect to petitioners No. 2 (Bhanwar Singh), No. 3 (Mohan Lal Jat), and No. 4 (Rajendra Singh) [Para 24].
 

Criminal Law – POSCO – Rape – Conviction Set Aside - Age Determination of Victim – Hierarchical Standards under Section 94 of JJ Act – Trial Court Erred in Relying on Birth Certificate Alone – As per Section 94 of the JJ Act and Rule 12(3)(a) of the JJ Rules, age determination must follow a hierarchical process, prioritizing a matriculation certificate, followed by the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, and lastly, the birth certificate issued by a municipal authority or gram panchayat – The prosecution failed to produce the school certificate despite the victim attending school up to Class 9 – Held: The trial court erred in relying solely on the birth certificate when better evidence was available and not procured, rendering the finding of minority unsustainable [Paras 16-23].

Victim’s Consent – Victim Above 18 Years – No Case Under Section 376 IPC or POCSO Act – Both the victim and her mother testified that the victim was over 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident – The victim admitted to a consensual relationship with the accused and denied any rape – Held: In the absence of evidence establishing the victim’s minority and given her consent, no offence under Section 376 IPC or Section 6 of the POCSO Act is made out against the accused [Paras 23-24].

Section 164 CrPC – Not Substantive Evidence – Trial Court Erred in Considering it for Conviction – A statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and can only be used to corroborate or contradict testimony given in court – The victim turned hostile during the trial, and her Section 164 CrPC statement could not be relied upon to convict the accused – Held: The trial court’s reliance on the Section 164 CrPC statement was misplaced, and the conviction cannot stand [Paras 25-27].

Investigative Lapses – Non-Compliance with JJ Act Provisions – Directions Issued – The investigating officer failed to collect relevant evidence regarding the victim’s age as mandated under Section 94 of the JJ Act – Held: Directions issued to the Director General of Police to ensure compliance with Section 94 of the JJ Act and ensure the availability of age determination documents in such cases [Paras 30-33].

Decision: The appeal was allowed – The conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were set aside – The fine, if deposited, was ordered to be refunded – Directions were issued to the Director General of Police and Director of Prosecution to ensure compliance with Section 94 of the JJ Act in future investigations.

Statutory Alternative Remedy – Section 35 of the U.P. Tenancy Act – Writ Not Maintainable - The Court held that the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 35 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. Filing a writ petition bypassing this remedy is not appropriate unless extraordinary circumstances exist – Held: Writ petition dismissed with directions to pursue the statutory appeal [Paras 2, 3].

Access to Justice Amid Lawyers’ Strike – Courts Must Remain Functional – Protective Measures Ordered - The petitioner contended that lawyers in Ghaziabad were on strike, preventing him from accessing justice. The Court directed district administration to ensure police protection for litigants and judicial officers and emphasized that strikes cannot bar access to justice – Held: Judicial officers must discharge duties despite strikes; police protection to be provided if necessary [Paras 4-6].

Role of Legal Profession – Ethical Responsibility of Lawyers – Public Interest Upheld - Lawyers are part of a noble profession and must ensure they do not restrain litigants or judicial officers from fulfilling their functions. Strikes must not compromise access to justice – Held: Lawyers expected to adhere to professional ethics and facilitate justice [Paras 6-7].

Expeditious Appeal Mechanism – Procedural Guidance Issued - The Court directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within two weeks and instructed the Rent Tribunal to decide the accompanying stay application within one week, even if the strike continues – Held: Appeal to be decided expeditiously; justice ensured despite external disruptions [Para 7].
 

Criminal Law - Right to Fair Trial – Examination of Defense Witnesses – Section 233 of Cr.P.C. – The petitioners sought to examine eight witnesses, including prominent individuals, as part of their defense in a high-profile dacoity and murder case – Held: The right to present a defense and examine witnesses is integral to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – The trial court erred in rejecting the petition without adequately considering the relevance and necessity of the witnesses sought to be examined – The order was set aside to ensure the defense's right to a fair trial [Paras 15-19, 25].

Witness Examination – High-Profile Individuals – Not Vexatious – The petitioners sought to examine Edappadi K. Palaniswami (former Chief Minister) and V.K. Sasikala, among others, arguing their testimony was relevant to understanding the circumstances surrounding the alleged crime – Held: The petitioners demonstrated sufficient cause to summon these witnesses – The examination of high-profile witnesses cannot be dismissed as vexatious without proper scrutiny of the reasons and facts supporting the application [Paras 19-21].

Suspicions Surrounding Investigation – Scope of Defense Evidence – Multiple deaths, including that of a prime accused, and allegations of tampered investigations necessitated the examination of key witnesses to uncover hidden facts – Held: The refusal to summon witnesses critical to the defense's case amounts to a denial of the opportunity to present a fair defense – The court emphasized the importance of evaluating circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence [Paras 20-22].

Administrative and Security Concerns – Witness Examination Justified – The petitioners sought to examine senior administrative officials to ascertain the reasons for the withdrawal of security at the crime scene and their knowledge of the premises – Held: Examining such witnesses was essential to address gaps in the investigation and ensure a comprehensive understanding of the case – Rejection of their examination by the trial court was erroneous [Paras 22].

Decision: The Criminal Revision was allowed, and the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Nilgiris, in Crl.M.P. No. 292 of 2021 in S.C. No. 2 of 2018, dated 30.04.2021, was set aside. The trial court was directed to permit the petitioners to examine the eight witnesses sought. The Sessions Court was also directed to complete the trial in accordance with the law, giving due opportunity to both the prosecution and the defense to present their cases [Paras 25-26].
 

RERA Compliance – Violation of Approved Plan – Builder Held Liable – The developer created additional car parking spaces beyond the CMDA-approved plan and sold them for profit – CMDA found that common areas and designated spaces were converted into car parks, causing congestion – Held: The developer’s actions violated the provisions of the RERA Act and CMDA guidelines, and compensation for mental agony was upheld [Paras 30-32].

Car Parking Allocation – Violation of Agreement Terms – Restoration Ordered – The complainant was allotted a specific car parking slot, which was later reassigned to another flat purchaser – Held: The car park originally allotted to the complainant shall be restored, and the developer is directed to provide an alternative covered car park to the other flat purchaser as per their agreement – Non-transparent practices by the developer criticized [Paras 33-35].

Compensation for Delay – Mental Agony and Legal Expenses – Award Upheld – The complainant suffered delays in possession and mental agony due to the developer’s actions – Compensation awarded for defects, maintenance charges, mental agony, and legal expenses upheld – Complainant entitled to withdraw Rs. 5,97,867 along with interest [Paras 36].

RERA Jurisdiction – Powers of Adjudicating Officer and Appellate Tribunal – Confirmed – The Appellate Tribunal correctly upheld compensation under RERA while noting limitations on the Adjudicating Officer’s powers in refund-related matters – The developer’s reliance on precedents like Newtech Promoters was distinguished, as compensation here was lawfully adjudicated [Paras 8-10].

Developer’s Conduct – Breach of Transparency and Good Faith – Condemned – The developer acted against the principles of good faith and transparency required under the RERA Act – Delay in addressing the complainant’s concerns and refusal to register the sale deed contributed to prolonged litigation – Builder held solely responsible for the dispute [Paras 27-33].

Decision:  CMSA Nos. 16 of 2020, 17 of 2023, 87 of 2022, and 89 of 2022 dismissed.

Restoration of the original car parking slot to the complainant upheld. Developer directed to allocate a covered car parking space to the other flat purchaser. Compensation of Rs. 5,97,867 with 8.35% interest per annum allowed.