Discharge Petition – Criminal Conspiracy and Forgery – The petitioner, who was charged under Sections 120(B), 465, 468, 471, 472, 420 read with 34 of the IPC, sought discharge from the charges, arguing that the investigation was improperly conducted and that key documents were not subjected to forensic examination – Held: The court found that for the charge of conspiracy, direct evidence may not always be available and can be inferred from the totality of the case during trial – The trial court had found a prima facie case against the petitioner based on the materials submitted, and the rejection of the discharge application was upheld [Paras 13-14].

Role of Forensic Examination – Forgery Allegations – The petitioner contended that the documents allegedly forged were not forwarded for forensic examination, which is necessary in cases of forgery – Held: It is not a rule that in all cases of forgery, the documents must be sent for forensic examination – The court can compare and study the signatures and writings under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, and in this case, the trial court found sufficient material to proceed without the forensic report [Para 14].

Counter Affidavit – Legitimacy and Procedure – The petitioner argued that the counter affidavit was filed by the Holding Inspector and not signed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, thereby lacking legal authority – Held: The court rejected this contention, noting that the Assistant Public Prosecutor acknowledged the counter affidavit and submitted it before the Presiding Officer – The trial court had considered the petitioner’s grounds for discharge along with the charge sheet and materials, rendering the counter affidavit issue irrelevant [Paras 12, 14].

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petitions – The criminal revision petitions were dismissed, confirming the trial court’s order rejecting the discharge applications – The court held that there was no illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s decision, as a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner based on the statements and materials available in the charge sheet [Paras 14-16].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 166 – Compensation Claim – Involvement of vehicle in accident – Whether the car involved in the accident was correctly identified and whether the insurance company is liable – Held, the Tribunal correctly held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the Swift car by the respondent. Evidence from the claimants sufficiently proved the car's involvement on a balance of probabilities, even though the FIR initially reported the driver as unknown. The appeal by the insurance company, alleging collusion between the claimants and the driver, was dismissed due to lack of evidence – [Paras 5-17].

Negligence – Standard of Proof in Motor Vehicle Accident Claims – The standard of proof in a motor accident claim is based on the preponderance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt, unlike in criminal trials. Claimants sufficiently proved the accident was due to the negligence of the respondent driver – [Paras 14-17].

Decision:

FAO-646-2017 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. FAO-7529-2017 filed by the claimants seeking enhancement is dismissed as withdrawn.

Motor Accident Claim – Involvement of the Vehicle – Standard of Proof – Appeals by the insurance company challenging the involvement of the vehicle in the accident, alleging it was a hit-and-run case – The claimants argued the vehicle's involvement was established based on witness testimony – Held: The Tribunal’s award was upheld as the claimants proved the involvement of the vehicle and negligence of the driver on the "preponderance of probability" standard, not requiring proof "beyond reasonable doubt" – The insurance company's appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal’s decision awarding compensation to the claimants [Paras 19-32].

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) – Evidence and Burden of Proof – Assessment of Compensation – The court examined the evidence presented, including eyewitness testimony and the vehicle’s implied involvement – The burden was on the claimants to establish the negligence of the vehicle on the "preponderance of probability" – Held: The MACT did not err in concluding the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent, and the assessment of compensation was appropriate – The compensation of ₹79,15,184/- awarded by the Tribunal was upheld [Paras 20-32].

Appeal for Enhancement – Withdrawal of Claim – The claimants withdrew their appeal seeking enhancement of compensation – Held: The claimants' appeal for enhancement was dismissed as withdrawn, maintaining the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal [Para 33].

Criminal Proceedings and MACT – Differentiation in Standard of Proof – The court noted that the standard of proof in motor accident claims differs from criminal proceedings – Acquittal in criminal court does not automatically negate civil liability – Held: Evidence in motor accident claims is weighed on a balance of probabilities rather than the stringent requirement of proving beyond reasonable doubt – The Tribunal's findings based on the balance of probabilities were upheld [Paras 19-22].

Decision: The court dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company, upholding the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of compensation amounting to ₹79,15,184/- to the claimants. The court found no merit in the insurance company's contention regarding the non-involvement of the vehicle. The claimants' separate appeal for enhancement of compensation was dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, the original award by the Tribunal was maintained in full(Paras 32-34).

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.