Territorial Jurisdiction – Writ Petition – RTI Act – Section 8(1)(j) – Forum Conveniens – Petitioner challenged the CIC’s order refusing disclosure of attendance records under the RTI Act. The court highlighted the principle of forum conveniens, noting that the SEEPZ-SEZ and concerned authorities were located in Mumbai, thus the High Court of Bombay was the appropriate forum. Petition dismissed on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and lack of merit. [Paras 4-6]

Right to Information – Exemption from Disclosure – Personal Information – RTI request for attendance records deemed personal information. Section 8(1)(j) exempts disclosure of personal information unless justified by larger public interest. The CPIO correctly invoked Section 11 to seek consent from consultants, some of whom objected to disclosure. CIC upheld the CPIO’s decision, finding no overriding public interest. [Paras 7-11]

Personal Information – Definition and Scope – Court referred to Supreme Court rulings in Subhash Chandra Agarwal and Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, defining personal information broadly to include professional records and performance evaluations. Such information is protected from unwarranted invasion of privacy unless public interest demands disclosure. [Paras 8-10]

Motivation Behind RTI Request – Judicial notice taken of petitioner’s status as a disgruntled employee, suggesting RTI application aimed at settling personal scores rather than genuine public interest. [Para 12]

Decision – Petition dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction and absence of public interest in disclosure of requested information. [Paras 6, 11, 13]

Transfer of Property Act – Section 44 – Rights of Co-owners and Transferees - Property Law – Second Appeal under Section 100 r/w Order XLII Rule 1 & 2 CPC dismissed – Challenge against the concurrent findings of trial court and 1st appellate court dismissing defendants’ claim over property by adverse possession and confirming mandatory injunction for eviction – High Court held that defendants were licensees and not co-owners, thus not entitled to protection under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act – Substantial question of law answered against appellants – Appeal dismissed with costs. [Paras 1-33]

Co-ownership and Licensee Rights – High Court evaluated defendants' claim of adverse possession and exchange of properties – Found defendants to be licensees under the original co-owner without any exchange of properties as claimed – Defendants not entitled to protection as co-owners under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act or Section 4 of the Partition Act – Suit for mandatory injunction held valid for eviction after termination of license – Previous decisions supporting co-owner’s right to sue for possession without involving other co-owners upheld. [Paras 9-20, 22-24, 30-32]

Procedural Aspects – High Court analyzed appropriateness of mandatory injunction vs. suit for recovery of possession – Upheld mandatory injunction based on prompt action by plaintiffs following termination of license – Distinguished from trespasser scenario due to immediate suit filing – Relied on precedents establishing that delay and necessity for a suit for possession are context-dependent – Avoidance of multiplicity of suits emphasized. [Paras 25-29]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – The second appeal is dismissed with costs due to lack of merit in the defendants' contentions, confirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the defendants are mere licensees and not co-owners, and thus liable to vacate the property as decreed. [Para 33]

Criminal Law – Exemption from Appearance – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the rejection of an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. for exemption from personal appearance – Petitioner unable to appear in court due to attending uncle's funeral – Trial court rejected exemption due to lack of immediate proof of death – High Court sets aside trial court's order, granting exemption – Recognizes procedural leniency for unforeseen personal events – Importance of balancing judicial process with personal exigencies emphasized. [Paras 1-8]

Nonappearance Justification – Evaluation – Held – The nonappearance justified by petitioner’s presence at a funeral – Submission of necropolis receipt and affidavit suffices for immediate proof – Importance of procedural justice and consideration of humanitarian grounds reaffirmed. [Paras 3-4]

Decision – Setting Aside of Impugned Order – High Court sets aside the trial court's order rejecting the exemption application – Directs petitioner to continue regular appearances henceforth – Emphasizes balance between judicial rigor and personal circumstances. [Paras 6-8]

Sanction for Prosecution – Validity – Evidence Act – Requirement of proving sanction for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act – Non-examination of sanctioning authority – Appellant’s challenge to the sanction order as being issued without considering relevant documents – Court’s satisfaction with sanctioning authority’s application of mind – Held, sanction for prosecution was valid and properly granted [Paras 6-9].

Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Evidence – Role of Accomplice – Evidence of PW6 (decoy witness) and PW2 (approver) corroborated by independent witness PW4 and trap laying officer PW7 – Conviction based on evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe corroborated by phenolphthalein test – Presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act invoked – Held, prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 10-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence by the trial court upheld.

Adverse Possession – Mandatory Injunction – Joint Possession – Plaintiffs purchased ½ share of property from a co-owner and sought mandatory injunction for defendants' eviction – Defendants claimed adverse possession and exchange of property – Courts found defendants to be licensees, not co-owners – Defendants not entitled to protection under Section 44 of Transfer of Property Act – Suit for mandatory injunction held proper without need for partition suit [Paras 2-14, 19-25, 32].

Transfer of Property Act – Co-Owners – Section 44 does not grant joint possession to non-family members acquiring property – Defendants residing as licensees, not as co-owners – Other co-owner's rights unaffected by decree in favor of plaintiffs [Paras 7-10, 12-14].

Partition Act – Right of Pre-emption – Section 4 of Partition Act not applicable as defendants not co-owners – Plaintiffs' suit for possession valid without partition claim – Absence of other co-owner in suit not fatal to plaintiffs' case [Paras 19-24].

Easements Act – Licenses – Section 59 states transferees not bound by prior licenses – Plaintiffs terminated license before suit – Defendants' possession not adverse [Paras 30-31].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Additional District Court, Palakkad upheld – Plaintiffs entitled to mandatory injunction directing defendants to vacate the property [Paras 33].

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Online Fraud – Applicant, in judicial custody for alleged involvement in online fraud, sought bail. It was alleged that the applicant’s bank account was used for fraudulent transactions amounting to Rs. 13,11,900/-. The applicant contended that his account was misused by a friend without his knowledge. The prosecution, however, provided evidence suggesting the applicant was aware of and involved in the fraudulent activities [Paras 1-10].

Evidence and Investigation – Role of Account Holder – The court examined statements from the bank manager who noted unusual transactions in the applicant’s account and questioned the applicant, who initially claimed the funds were for business purposes. The manager’s testimony contradicted the applicant’s claim of reporting the matter to the police upon noticing irregularities [Paras 5-7].

Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Given the nature of the offense and the risk of repeat offenses if released, the court found no grounds to grant bail. The court emphasized that observations made in the bail order should not influence subsequent stages of trial [Paras 8-10].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – High Court exercises its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 42/2015 – Dispute between parties found to be civil in nature – Petitioner alleged to have illegally occupied property despite expired license agreement – Court held no ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust established – Criminal proceedings deemed abuse of process of law [Paras 1-22].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Civil disputes being converted into criminal cases – Supreme Court guidelines discourage using criminal prosecution to settle civil disputes – Court quashes FIR based on predominant civil nature of dispute and concurrent civil suits pending – Emphasis on distinguishing civil remedies from criminal prosecution [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Quashing of FIR – Held – FIR No. 42/2015 quashed as it constituted an abuse of legal process – The dispute, primarily civil in nature, is being addressed in civil courts – Criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil matters – Observations made to have no bearing on ongoing civil suits [Para 21].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appeal against the conviction for the murder of Nem Singh – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Recovery of axe and blood-stained clothes from appellant’s house deemed insufficient as primary evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Conviction also questioned due to lack of clear motive and chain of evidence [Paras 1-48].
Circumstantial Evidence – Requirements for Conviction – Emphasis on the need for a complete chain of evidence excluding any hypothesis of innocence – Court held that mere suspicion cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt – The importance of motive in circumstantial cases reaffirmed [Paras 30-31].
Recovery Evidence – Admissibility and Relevance – Critique of the lower court’s reliance on recovery of weapons and clothes under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Absence of proper procedural adherence for disclosure statements – Court noted that conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act cannot solely ground a conviction [Paras 32-44].
Abscondence of Accused – Not sufficient for Conviction – Court held that mere abscondence cannot lead to a firm conclusion of guilt, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence to substantiate charges [Paras 45-46].
Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted – High Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant’s bail bonds canceled and sureties discharged [Para 48].
 

Jurisdiction – Criminal Procedure – FIR Quashing – Petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the CJM, Jammu, to entertain a complaint leading to FIR No.79/2013 – Contended no part of the cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of Jammu – Court held CJM lacked jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CrPC as no event occurred within its territorial limits – Consequently, FIR and subsequent investigation by Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu quashed [Paras 1-13].

Criminal Law – Insurance Dispute – Nature of Claims – The grievance related to non-payment of insurance policy claims was deemed purely civil – Supreme Court precedents cited to emphasize such matters should not be given criminal coloration – No offence of cheating or forgery established against the petitioner-company – FIR quashed on merits [Paras 14-20].

Decision: Petition allowed – Held – CJM, Jammu, lacked jurisdiction to direct registration of FIR – FIR No.79/2013 and subsequent proceedings quashed as an abuse of process of law – Complaint deemed to be of civil nature without criminal offence [Paras 21-22].