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].
 

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Appellants convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Mahboob Hasan – Trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment with fines – High Court finds the evidence insufficient to uphold the conviction – Emphasizes the necessity of a clear chain of circumstances leading to the only conclusion of the guilt of the accused [Paras 26-33].

Evidence Law – Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Prosecution’s reliance on the recovery of weapons at the appellants’ instance – High Court highlights lack of proper disclosure statements as per Section 27 requirements – Finds that mere recovery without proven disclosure statements does not suffice to establish guilt [Paras 28-39].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Appellants acquitted due to insufficient evidence – High Court underscores the need for concrete and admissible evidence in securing convictions, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence – Orders release of the appellants if not wanted in any other case [Paras 40-44].
 

Date of Birth – Dispute Resolution – Petitioner challenged the order directing completion of pension papers based on the erroneous date of birth – Contention that the correct date of birth is 22.04.1970, making the petitioner only 54 years old – Respondent’s standing order allows for such disputes to be resolved by the Labour Commissioner – Writ petition allowed – Petitioner given liberty to apply to the Labour Commissioner with proof of date of birth – Labour Commissioner to decide within three months after hearing both parties [Paras 2-6].

Retirement Age – Standing Orders – Provisions under Clause LL of the Standing Orders applicable – Emphasizes procedure for resolving disputes regarding date of birth for retirement purposes – Highlights the need for proper verification and consideration of reliable records including Provident Fund records, school certificates, municipal records, insurance policies, and other valid documents [Para 5].

Procedure – Application to Labour Commissioner – Petitioner instructed to file application with proof of date of birth to Labour Commissioner, who is to make a determination after providing opportunity for both parties to be heard – Emphasizes the obligation for timely disposal of such applications [Para 6].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Orders for petitioner to apply to Labour Commissioner – Labour Commissioner to decide within three months – Pending applications disposed of accordingly [Paras 6-7].
 

Partition and Possession – Joint Hindu Family Property – Appellant contested respondents’ claim for half share in the suit property – Lower courts decreed suit based on finding that the property was joint family property and no partition had taken place – Appellant argued that the property was self-acquired by Harlal and included a disputed sale deed – High Court upheld lower courts’ findings on joint family property but modified decree to exclude 1.14 acres as self-acquired by Harlal [Paras 2-15].

Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 – Property Rights of Widows – Appellant’s husband died in 1941, invoking the 1937 Act which granted the widow a share in the joint family property – High Court confirmed that upon husband’s death, widow acquired half share in property, succeeded by daughters under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Paras 11-12].

Adverse Possession and Plea of Partition – Defendants' plea of adverse possession and prior partition not proven – Courts below rejected these claims based on oral evidence and admissions, upheld by High Court [Paras 10-11].

Validity of Sale Deed – Disputed sale deed held valid by first appellate court – No pleadings or relief sought regarding the sale deed in plaint – Plaintiffs not entitled to share in land covered by the sale deed [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Second appeal partly allowed – Lower courts’ judgment and decree modified to exclude 1.14 acres of self-acquired property from partition – Decree drawn accordingly – No order as to costs – Misc. applications, if any, closed [Paras 16-18].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Attempt to Murder and Arms Possession – Appellants convicted under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act – Trial Court sentenced Raj Singh to seven years and others to three years rigorous imprisonment with fines – Appeals contesting convictions based on alleged procedural errors and contradictions in witness testimonies [Paras 1-14].

Procedure – Discrepancies and Contradictions – Noted significant inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the incident details and their locations during the event – Absence of forensic evidence linking the accused to the recovered firearms [Paras 20-24].

Evidence – Inadequate Presentation and Missing Forensic Reports – Observed missing ballistic reports and unexplained custody of firearms between recovery and submission – Highlighted importance of consistent and corroborative evidence in criminal convictions [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Convictions and sentences set aside due to major discrepancies in prosecution’s case and lack of critical forensic evidence – Appellants acquitted of all charges [Para 26].
 

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – State appealed against the acquittal of the respondent in a murder case – Trial Court had acquitted the respondent on grounds of insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies – High Court examined the merits of the trial court’s findings and the prosecution's evidence – High Court upheld the acquittal, agreeing with the lower court’s assessment of unreliable witness statements and lack of concrete evidence linking the respondent to the crime [Paras 1-28]​​.

Evidentiary Standards – Witness Testimonies – High Court highlighted inconsistencies in witness statements and the prosecution's failure to provide a coherent narrative – Emphasized the necessity of reliable and corroborated testimonies in securing convictions – Court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to overturn the trial court’s acquittal [Paras 10-20]​​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – High Court affirmed that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt [Para 28]​​.