Electricity Laws – Meter Tampering – Appeal against demand notice – Regular second appeal challenging the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court – Dispute over alleged tampering of electricity meter in respondent’s cotton factory – Appellants’ Flying Squad claimed meter reading was reversed and glass scratched – Both courts found seals on the metal box and meter intact – No substantive evidence of tampering with the glass – Appeal dismissed.

Meter Tampering – Analysis – Held – Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court found that the meter was installed in a metal box with intact seals – Witnesses from the appellants admitted seals were intact – No evidence to support claims of glass tampering – Statement of DW2 regarding reversed meter reading considered insufficient without corroborative evidence.

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissed – No substantial question of law found – Judgments and decrees of the lower courts upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Condonation of Delay – Criminal Miscellaneous Petition against Trial Court’s order condoning delay in filing complaint – Petitioners argued delay not justified and trial court failed to provide reasons – Trial Court’s order found to be non-speaking and lacking in cogent reasons – Held, condonation of delay requires detailed reasoning reflecting application of mind – Order quashed and matter remanded for fresh decision with proper reasoning.

Condonation of Delay – Analysis – Held – Trial Court must provide detailed reasoning for condonation of delay, reflecting proper application of mind – Order lacking such reasoning is unsustainable – Right to reason is indispensable for a sound judicial decision – Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh decision on condonation application.

Decision – Quashing of Non-Speaking Order – Trial Court’s order condoning delay set aside – Matter remanded for fresh decision with proper opportunity for parties to be heard – Order to be passed with cogent reasons in accordance with law.

Domestic Violence – Interim Monetary Compensation – Petitioner challenged the order of the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, enhancing interim monetary compensation from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 31,000 per month – Contention that an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act against an interim order is not maintainable – Court held that there is no bar on filing an appeal against an interim order under Section 29 of the DV Act – Interim orders passed under Section 23 of the DV Act are appealable [Paras 1-16].

Jurisdiction – Scope of Appeal under DV Act – Argument advanced by petitioner relying on Punjab & Haryana High Court decision, holding that no appeal lies against interim orders, rejected – Uttarakhand and Delhi High Courts’ decisions holding appeals maintainable against interim orders under DV Act endorsed – Legislature did not explicitly bar appeals against interim orders, thus they fall within purview of Section 29 of the DV Act [Paras 7-15].

Interim Order – Evaluation of Evidence – Order of the Trial Magistrate reducing interim compensation from Rs. 21,000 to Rs. 15,000 per month found cryptic and lacking reasons – 1^st Additional Sessions Judge’s detailed analysis and enhancement of interim compensation to Rs. 31,000 per month upheld – Findings based on petitioner’s substantial salary and children’s educational needs – No perversity in conclusions warranting High Court’s interference [Paras 17-21].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Appellate Court’s order – No gross failure of justice or violation of natural justice principles identified – High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 not invoked to alter well-reasoned orders of subordinate courts [Para 22].

Criminal Procedure – Registration of FIR – Complaint Handling Post Cognizance – Petitioner challenged the order directing registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after the Magistrate recorded the complainant’s statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. – Held that once cognizance was taken by recording the statement, the Magistrate could not issue directions for FIR registration under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Such directions can only be issued at a pre-cognizance stage [Paras 1-10].

Procedure under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Emphasized that direction under Section 156(3) for FIR registration is not permissible post-cognizance by the Magistrate – Highlighted the Supreme Court’s stance in “M/S Sas Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Telangana” regarding the stages at which FIR directions can be issued [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Quashing of the order and FIR – Orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and consequent FIR quashed – Directed the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the law without requiring pre-process hearing from the accused [Paras 10-11].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonor of Cheque – Criminal Revision against the conviction and sentence by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, upheld by Additional Sessions Judge – Petitioner entered into an agreement to sell a petrol pump and issued a cheque as part of a settlement – Cheque dishonored due to insufficient funds – Legal notice served but payment not made – Petitioner denied execution of agreement and claimed cheque was lost/misused – Evidence including testimonies and documents (agreement to sell, settlement deed) examined – Petitioner’s multiple contradictory defenses dismissed – Conviction upheld as petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act – Revision dismissed. [Paras 1-18]

Role of Petitioner – Evidence Analysis – Held – Petitioner’s multiple contradictory defenses deemed unreliable – Consistent evidence from respondent No.1 and witnesses corroborating the agreement and settlement deed – Petitioner’s failure to take legal action against alleged misuse of cheque noted – Signatures on crucial documents including agreement and settlement deed verified – Conviction based on substantive evidence and legal presumption under Negotiable Instruments Act. [Paras 14-17]

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – Court finds no merit in the petition – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act upheld – Petition dismissed due to lack of credible defense and failure to rebut statutory presumption. [Para 18]

Civil Procedure – Maintainability of Suit – Notice Requirement under Section 80 CPC – Second Appeal against the judgment of the lower appellate court, which dismissed the suit for lack of mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC – The suit was initially filed by plaintiffs seeking a declaration of ownership by adverse possession of agricultural land – Trial Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, but lower appellate court reversed this, citing non-compliance with Section 80 CPC – High Court upheld the decision of the lower appellate court, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the notice requirement under Section 80 CPC – Held, compliance with Section 80 CPC is a condition precedent for instituting a suit against the Government or public officers – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-13]

Mandatory Nature of Section 80 CPC – Analysis – Supreme Court precedents affirming the necessity of serving notice under Section 80 CPC before instituting a suit – Section 80 aims to provide the government a chance to address grievances outside of court – Non-compliance results in the suit being deemed not maintainable – Exceptions under Section 80(2) discussed, but the case at hand did not meet the criteria for such exceptions. [Para 9-13]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Court upheld the lower appellate court’s judgment dismissing the suit due to the absence of mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC – No error found in the lower appellate court’s application of law – Appeal dismissed with costs. [Para 13]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. –

Allegations of dowry harassment and domestic violence – FIR against entire family of husband including those living separately – Specific allegations only against husband and parents – General, vague, and bald allegations against others – No prima facie case against distant relatives – Court cites Supreme Court's caution against roping in distant relatives without specific instances – FIR quashed for distant relatives – Continuance against husband and parents upheld [Paras 1-16].

Procedure under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Abuse of process – Emphasis on specific allegations for prosecution – Application of judgments from Supreme Court cases to ensure fair trial – General allegations insufficient to prosecute relatives without details – Court's intervention to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 10-14].

Decision: FIR quashed against petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 – Petition infructuous for petitioners Nos. 4 to 7 – Investigating Officer to proceed against petitioner No. 3 in accordance with law [Paras 15-16].

Education Law – Promissory Estoppel – Legitimate Expectation – Return of Applications for Special Education Courses – RCI’s Decision – Judicial Review – Writ Petitions Against RCI Circulars

Representation and Reliance - Circulars issued by RCI invited fresh proposals from institutions for conducting special education courses for the academic session 2024-2025, including diploma and degree courses. The petitioners, acting on the representations, invested substantial resources to conform to RCI norms. Subsequently, RCI’s decision to return these proposals, based on a letter from the Ministry, was challenged as arbitrary and lacking legal justification. [Paras 1-23]

Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation - Held, RCI’s circulars amounted to a clear representation inducing petitioners to submit proposals and invest resources. The decision to resile from this representation without adequate justification or supervening public equity was not permissible. Petitioners could not restore status quo ante, making the initial representation irrevocable against RCI. [Paras 60-79]

Arbitrariness and Lack of Statutory Basis - The decision to return the proposals was based solely on a ministerial letter without due consideration by the Executive Committee of RCI. No statutory provision or amended regulation justified the return of applications for diploma and degree courses. The ongoing need for special educators further negated any public interest justification for the decision. [Paras 66-74]

NEP 2020 Considerations - The NEP 2020 recognized the urgent need for additional special educators, contradicting the rationale for not considering new proposals. Enhancing seats in existing institutions while refusing new proposals was inconsistent with the stated objectives of NEP 2020. [Paras 80-81]

Decision - The impugned circulars dated 4 January 2024 and 8 March 2024 were quashed to the extent they returned the petitioners’ applications for starting D.Ed.Spl.Ed. and B.Ed.Spl.Ed. courses. The RCI was directed to process the proposals in accordance with law. The challenge to the circular allowing enhancement of seats in existing institutions was dismissed. [Paras 83-85]

Criminal Law - Acquittal for Murder - Government Appeal against trial court’s judgment acquitting accused of murder charges under Section 302/34 IPC - Trial court convicted accused for causing simple injuries under Section 323/34 IPC - Prosecution alleged that accused snatched a one-year-old child from her mother's lap and threw her on the ground, leading to her death - Post-mortem report indicated death due to shock and haemorrhage from a ruptured spleen with no external injuries - Prosecution witnesses' testimonies inconsistent and contradicted by medical evidence - Held, prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder - Acquittal for murder charges affirmed. [Paras 20-23, 36-39, 46-47]

Injury Causing - Conviction for Simple Injuries - Prosecution established that accused inflicted simple injuries on complainants during altercation - Medical evidence corroborated injuries consistent with blunt force trauma - Trial court’s finding of guilt under Section 323/34 IPC supported by consistent testimonies of injured witnesses and medical reports - Conviction for simple injuries upheld. [Paras 33-34, 48]

Procedural Aspects - Charges Framing - Discrepancy in charges framed by trial court noted - Separate charges for individual accused under Section 302 IPC and joint charges under Section 302/34 IPC - Alteration unexplained by prosecution - Emphasized importance of clarity in charges framing. [Para 45]

Decision - Dismissal of Government Appeal - Appeal challenging acquittal under Section 302/34 IPC dismissed - Trial court’s judgment affirmed - Conviction and sentence for simple injuries under Section 323/34 IPC sustained - No order as to costs. [Paras 49-51]