Murder – Common Intention – Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Conviction Upheld – The appellants were charged with the murder of Sri. Anchalose, allegedly motivated by prior enmity – Prosecution case relied on eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and prior incidents of animosity – PW1 (sister of the deceased) and PW2 (brother-in-law of the deceased) provided consistent accounts of the attack, wherein the accused intercepted the victim, assaulted him with wooden stumps, and caused fatal injuries – Postmortem report confirmed multiple contusions and fractures consistent with blunt force trauma – Held: The concurrent participation of the accused, the nature of injuries inflicted, and the recovery of weapons support the prosecution case – Failure to establish the blood origin on the recovered weapons does not weaken the case – The learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Appeals dismissed [Paras 13-16, 24-26, 32-33].

Criminal Law – FIR – Omission of Details – Not Fatal – Defence contended that the FIR did not mention the presence of PW1 at the crime scene – Held: FIR is not a verbatim record of the prosecution case – Minor omissions do not vitiate the prosecution’s case if supported by substantive evidence – Prompt registration of FIR, coupled with corroborative evidence, strengthens the prosecution’s version [Paras 18-21].

Forensic Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Significance of Blood Analysis – Defence challenged the reliability of weapon recovery, citing the inability to determine the blood origin – Held: Delay in forensic examination does not invalidate the recovery, as serological limitations often prevent accurate blood grouping – The presence of blood on the recovered weapons, coupled with eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, sufficiently links the accused to the crime – No interference warranted [Paras 30-31].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Constructive Liability – Defence argued the absence of direct evidence proving a premeditated plan – Held: Common intention can be inferred from circumstances – The accused acted in concert, targeting the deceased with lethal force – The manner of attack and shared participation satisfy the requirements under Section 34 IPC – Conviction upheld [Paras 32-33].
 

Reassessment Proceedings – Applicability of First Proviso to Section 147 – Extended Time Limit Under TOLA – The petitioner argued that the reassessment notice under Section 148 was issued beyond four years without any failure on his part to disclose material facts fully and truly, and hence, was barred by the first proviso to Section 147 – The Revenue contended that the extended time limit under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2022 (TOLA) applied – Held: The applicability of TOLA was not raised before the Assessing Officer, and such an objection cannot be raised for the first time in a writ petition – The petitioner is free to raise this contention in appeal [Paras 15-16].

Change of Opinion – Whether Reassessment is Permissible When Issues Were Examined During Original Assessment – The petitioner claimed that the deduction under Section 54F and income from house property were already examined during scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), and thus, reassessment amounted to a change of opinion – The Court noted that the original assessment record did not reflect any specific query raised on these issues – Held: Since there was no explicit examination of these issues, the reassessment does not amount to a mere change of opinion – The petitioner can, however, challenge this aspect before the Appellate Authority [Paras 16-17].

Reassessment Based on Audit Objections – Validity of Reopening Proceedings – The petitioner contended that reassessment was initiated at the behest of the audit party, which amounts to "borrowed satisfaction" – The Court observed that if reassessment is based solely on factual errors pointed out by the audit party, it is invalid, but if it raises a question of law, it is permissible – Held: The reasons recorded for reopening did not refer to audit objections, and the petitioner had not demonstrated how internal audit documents were accessed – This contention requires factual examination, which is beyond the writ jurisdiction [Paras 18-19].

Alternate and Efficacious Remedy – Maintainability of Writ Petition Under Article 226 – The Revenue argued that an alternate remedy of statutory appeal under Chapter XX of the Income Tax Act was available, making the writ petition not maintainable – The Court held that the availability of appeal, without the requirement of pre-deposit, made it a more appropriate remedy – Held: Writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy – The petitioner is granted four weeks to file an appeal, with the Appellate Authority directed to adjudicate without objections on limitation [Paras 13-14, 23].

Interim Relief – Extension of Stay Period – Since the Court had granted ad-interim relief on 20/09/2022, it was extended for four weeks to allow the petitioner to seek a stay before the appropriate authority – The Appellate Authority must decide the stay application on its own merits, uninfluenced by the Court’s observations [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner granted four weeks to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority – Ad-interim relief extended for four weeks – The Court held that all issues, including jurisdiction under Section 147, validity of reassessment, and alleged audit-based reopening, can be raised before the Appellate Authority – No findings were given on the merits of the reassessment [Paras 23-27].

Service Law – Reservation for BC Category – Requirement of Fresh BC Certificate – Validity of Certificates – Rejection of Candidature Arbitrary – Candidates applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (General Duty) under BC-A/BC-B category – Their candidature was rejected on the ground that caste certificates were issued before 01.04.2023 – Held: No specific cut-off date was prescribed in the advertisement for BC certificate submission – As per Haryana Government instructions, caste certificates remain valid for a lifetime, but certificates including income details (creamy layer status) are valid only till the end of the financial year – The requirement of a "fresh latest certificate" does not imply that a certificate issued before 01.04.2023 becomes invalid – Rejection of candidates based solely on an administrative cut-off date was arbitrary and unjustified – Rejection order quashed – Authorities directed to consider petitioners under the BC category based on Parivar Pehchan Patra verification [Paras 10-12].

Recruitment Process – Change of Rules Midway – CET Qualified Candidates – Violation of Established Selection Norms – Candidates were initially shortlisted based on Common Eligibility Test (CET) results under the BC category – The rejection at a later stage on technical grounds regarding the date of caste certificate amounts to a change in the "rules of the game" after the selection process began – Held: Once a candidate was categorized as BC at the CET stage, authorities could not impose fresh conditions regarding caste certificate submission unless specifically mentioned in the advertisement – Rejection order quashed – Petitioners entitled to be considered under BC category as per CET selection [Paras 20-22].

Use of Parivar Pehchan Patra (PPP) – Verification of Caste Status – Government Bound to Use Official Verification System – The Government had introduced PPP-linked certificates for ease of verification – Advertisement clause 6.5 provided that in the absence of a fresh BC certificate, caste status would be determined from PPP – Held: Since the authorities had access to PPP data, they could verify the caste status of candidates, and rejecting candidates for not submitting a fresh BC certificate was unjustified – The authorities were bound to verify caste details from the official portal if the certificate was not submitted – Respondents directed to verify caste status from PPP and not reject candidates solely for not submitting a fresh certificate [Paras 21-23].

Administrative Discretion – Principles of Reasonableness – Violation of Fair Selection Process – The principle that "rules of the game cannot be changed after the selection process starts" was reiterated – Authorities cannot introduce new conditions after the recruitment process has begun, which were not specified in the initial advertisement – Directions issued to reconsider the petitioners' candidature in the reserved category based on PPP verification – Any rejection must be based on a valid reason, not an arbitrary administrative cut-off date [Paras 24-26].

Decision: The rejection of the petitioners’ candidature based on the non-submission of a fresh BC certificate issued after 01.04.2023 was quashed. The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioners under the BC-A/BC-B category based on their verified caste details in the Parivar Pehchan Patra (PPP). The authorities were further instructed to avoid arbitrary cut-off dates and ensure fairness in the selection process by adhering to established verification mechanisms.

POCSO Act – Serious Nature of Allegations – Bail Rejected – The petitioner was accused of multiple offenses under the IPC and POCSO Act, including sexual assault, conspiracy, and intimidation – The prosecution argued that the victim had committed suicide under mysterious circumstances, further complicating the case – Held: Given the gravity of allegations and potential impact on trial proceedings, bail was denied [Paras 1-6].

Prior Criminal History – Impact on Bail Consideration – The petitioner was previously involved in multiple criminal cases, including cases registered under Sections 120B, 406, 420, and 498A IPC – The Court considered the petitioner’s past record as a relevant factor in denying bail – Held: Repeat involvement in serious offenses diminishes the credibility of the bail plea [Paras 7-9].

Supreme Court Precedents – Bail Not to be Granted Mid-Trial – The Court relied on X v. State of Rajasthan, SLP (Criminal) No. 13378/2024, where the Supreme Court emphasized that bail should not ordinarily be granted in serious offenses once trial has commenced – Held: Since trial was underway and prosecution witnesses were being examined, bail was not justified [Paras 10-12].

Bail Application Rejected – No Infringement of Speedy Trial Rights – The petitioner argued that he had been incarcerated since 15.06.2024, but the Court noted that trial was proceeding and had not been unduly delayed – Held: The right to a speedy trial had not been violated, and bail was denied at this stage [Paras 13-15].
 

Quashing of FIR – Prima Facie Case Made Out – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 354D, 509, 504, and 506(2) IPC, alleging that the complaint was a counterblast to an earlier case filed by him – The Court observed that the FIR detailed specific allegations, including stalking, obscene gestures, and threats of revenge using occult practices – Held: Since the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense, the Court refused to interfere at this stage and dismissed the petition [Paras 5.1-5.5].

Plea of Counterblast FIR – No Merit – The petitioner contended that the FIR was a retaliatory action due to an earlier complaint filed by him – The Court held that even if there were previous disputes, the allegations in the present case had to be independently examined – Held: Mere existence of prior litigation does not automatically render a subsequent FIR false [Paras 5.2-5.3].

Judicial Precedents on Quashing – FIR Cannot Be Quashed Based on Disputed Facts – The Court referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, which establish that quashing of FIRs should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases – Held: Since the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclosed a cognizable offense, the Court could not quash it at this stage [Paras 5.5-5.6].

Stage of Criminal Proceedings – Court Cannot Interfere Before Trial – The investigation had already resulted in the filing of a charge sheet, and trial proceedings were at an advanced stage – The Court reiterated that interference at this stage would be inappropriate – Held: Petitioner should contest the charges in trial; quashing petition dismissed [Para 6].
Decision: Petition dismissed – The Court refused to quash the FIR, holding that a prima facie case existed, and the petitioner should contest the allegations during trial – No interim relief granted.
 

Civil Law - Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Section 100 CPC – Limited to Substantial Question of Law – High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless findings are perverse or based on inadmissible evidence – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14-15].

Suit for Declaration and Possession – Registered Sale Deed as Proof of Title – Plaintiff relied on a registered sale deed executed by the first defendant – Execution of the sale deed not denied, but defendant claimed it was a mortgage deed – No evidence to prove mortgage – Defendant failed to challenge the sale deed by seeking its cancellation – Held: Plaintiff successfully proved title and entitlement to possession [Paras 18-22].

Defendant’s Admission – Effect on Title – First defendant admitted executing the sale deed and receiving consideration – Husband of the first defendant was an attesting witness – No steps taken by the defendant to cancel the document – Held: Defendant’s admission supports the plaintiff’s claim of valid sale transaction [Paras 19-21].

Alternative Relief of Possession – When Maintainable – Plaintiff sought declaration of title and injunction but alternatively prayed for possession – Courts below granted recovery of possession – High Court upheld the decision holding that procedural defects should not deny substantive justice – Held: Plaintiff entitled to possession upon proving title [Paras 20-21].

Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Both trial and first appellate courts arrived at consistent findings based on evidence – High Court held that mere re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in a second appeal – Held: No grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings – Appeal dismissed [Paras 22-23].
 

Taxation Law – Income tax - Reassessment Notices – Limitation Period and Effect of TOLA – Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Petitioners challenged reassessment notices issued under Section 148 on the ground that they were beyond the permissible limitation period – Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 held that the period from 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021 must be excluded due to COVID-19 extensions under TOLA – Held: Assessing Officers must verify the surviving limitation period in light of Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8140 before proceeding with reassessments [Paras 18-24].

Faceless Reassessment – Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer – Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Petitioners argued that only the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) could issue reassessment notices and that jurisdictional AOs lacked authority – Court referred to T.K.S. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and held that faceless assessment does not oust the jurisdiction of the AO completely – Held: AO retains concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment under Section 148, even after introduction of faceless assessment – Notices issued by AOs are valid [Paras 3, 85-90].

Approval for Reassessment – Compliance with Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Petitioners contended that approvals for reassessment post-01 April 2021 must be obtained from the Principal Commissioner, not the Joint Commissioner – Court followed Abhinav Jindal HUF v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6585 and held that approvals granted by Joint Commissioners post-01 April 2021 are invalid – Held: AOs must review approvals and quash reassessment notices where approvals were obtained from unauthorized officers [Paras 4, 30-41].

Search-Based Reassessment – Whether Sections 153A/153C Exclude Section 148 – Petitioners argued that if reassessment is based on material from a search, proceedings must follow Section 153A/153C and not Section 148 – Court referred to Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 v. Naveen Kumar Gupta, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8140 and held that AO can proceed under Section 147/148 if conditions for Section 153C are not met – Held: Reassessment based on search information is valid even if proceedings under Section 153C were not initiated [Paras 5-6, 38-61].

Issuance of Reassessment Notices Without Digital Identification Number (DIN) – CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 – Petitioners argued that notices issued without DIN were invalid – Court declined to examine this issue, noting that Commissioner of Income Tax v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6481 had already ruled in favor of petitioners, but the matter was under appeal before the Supreme Court – Held: Issue of non-DIN notices left open for adjudication in pending cases [Paras 7-9].

Definition of “Information” Under Section 148 – Scope of Explanation 1 – Petitioners challenged the validity of information used to initiate reassessment under Explanation 1 to Section 148 – Court noted that a separate batch of writ petitions was considering this issue – Held: Issue left open for future adjudication [Para 9].

Binding Effect of Supreme Court’s Judgment in Rajeev Bansal – Computation of Surviving Time for Reassessment – Court directed AOs to determine the validity of reassessment notices in light of Rajeev Bansal – Held: If surviving time for issuing a notice expired before actual issuance, reassessment notice must be quashed – Petitioners allowed to submit written submissions within three weeks before AOs complete verification [Paras 25-31].

Decision: Reassessment notices upheld, subject to verification of surviving time limits – Assessing Officers directed to review individual cases within three weeks – Interim orders to continue until final orders are passed – Petitioners granted liberty to challenge adverse findings.

Criminal Law – Appeal against dismissal Perjury – Scope of Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Necessity of Clear Evidence – The appellant alleged that the first respondent made false statements regarding her pregnancy and financial transactions in multiple legal proceedings – Held: Contradictions in testimony or rival contentions do not automatically amount to perjury – Falsehood must be glaring and knowingly stated – Courts must be cautious in initiating perjury proceedings to prevent abuse of judicial process [Paras 8-9].

Criminal Contempt – Alleged Fraud on Court – Absence of Admissible Proof – The appellant contended that the first respondent and her counsel concealed facts and misrepresented material facts before the court – Held: The scan report relied upon by the appellant was not admitted in evidence or proved in trial – Perjury proceedings cannot be initiated on unverified documents or contradictory statements unless the falsehood is established beyond doubt [Paras 6-7].

Doctrine of Abuse of Process – Frivolous Litigation – Repeated Allegations Against Opposing Parties and Judicial Officers – The appellant had earlier raised similar allegations against different judges, opposing counsel, and judicial officers – Held: Courts must guard against vengeful litigations that seek to harass the opposite party and legal professionals – Invoking criminal law for settling personal scores amounts to abuse of process [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the trial court’s findings. The court observed that the petition was frivolous and an abuse of process and should have been dismissed with exemplary costs.
 

Right to Protest – Regulation by Authorities – Constitutional Safeguards – The petitioners sought permission for a demonstration against alleged temple land encroachment, which was denied citing potential communal disharmony – Held: Right to protest is fundamental but subject to reasonable restrictions – Authorities must handle such requests with fairness and not impose blanket prohibitions without valid reasons [Paras 3-4].

Prohibitory Orders – Section 144 Cr.P.C. – Justification and Procedural Compliance – The District Collector imposed prohibitory orders on public assembly for two days, citing security risks – Held: While public order is a legitimate concern, orders under Section 144 must be exercised cautiously and proportionately – Authorities must explore less restrictive alternatives [Para 4].

Resolution Through Mediation – Alternative Venue for Protest – In the interest of public peace, the Court facilitated a compromise, allowing the protest at Pazhanganatham Junction instead of Thiruparankundram Temple, with police protection and conditions for peaceful assembly – Held: Courts may intervene to balance fundamental rights and public order concerns through alternative solutions [Para 4].

Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of by allowing the protest to take place at Pazhanganatham Junction between 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., with police arrangements and restrictions on use of loudspeakers and slogans. The organizers were directed to video-record the protest and ensure peaceful conduct.