Custody of Child – Physical Presence – Writ petition against the trial court's order requiring the physical presence of the child – Trial court insisted on the child's presence on several dates – Father contended that the child can communicate via video conference and is currently residing in Guwahati – Mother's application for child's custody led to the impugned order – High Court upheld trial court's decision emphasizing the necessity of the child's interaction with the court for custody determination [Paras 1-6].

Jurisdiction and Compliance – Father argued lack of jurisdiction by Bangalore courts and child's refusal to come to Bangalore – High Court rejected jurisdictional challenge noting that the mother had moved to Bangalore with the child in June 2022 with father's consent – Father's failure to comply with court orders to produce the child noted – High Court found trial court's decision to interact with the child appropriate considering the child's age and circumstances [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Father's non-compliance with court orders necessitates child's presence for proper custody determination – Trial court's order to produce the child upheld – Pending interlocutory applications closed [Para 6].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Conviction and Sentence – Appellant convicted for possession of 77.36 kg of Cannabis (Ganja) – Conviction challenged on grounds of procedural lapses and non-compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act – Trial Court failed to present primary evidence in form of certified inventory, photographs, and list of samples – Seized contraband not physically produced during trial – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside [Paras 1-42].

Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act – Mandate of Section 52A requires preparation of inventory, certification by Magistrate, and proper documentation of sampling – Prosecution's failure to produce inventory and certified photographs as primary evidence – Non-production of contraband resulted in adverse inference under Section 114[g] of the Evidence Act – Trial vitiated due to non-compliance [Paras 22-41].

Evidentiary Standards – Forensic and Physical Evidence – Testimony of witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.3 inconsistent regarding location and procedure of seizure – Photographs identified by witnesses conflicted with documentary evidence – Forensic samples tested positive but procedural irregularities in sampling noted – High burden of proof under NDPS Act not met by prosecution [Paras 16-21].

Procedural Lapses – Investigation and Trial – Appellant argued prosecution failed to follow mandatory procedures under NDPS Act – Court found discrepancies in seizure process, inventory preparation, and certification by Magistrate – Failure to produce seized contraband in court and lack of primary evidence led to acquittal [Paras 30-40].

Judicial Scrutiny – Appellate Review – High Court scrutinized trial court’s handling of evidence and procedural compliance – Found significant lapses undermining the integrity of prosecution’s case – Emphasized strict adherence to statutory requirements under NDPS Act [Paras 35-42].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case – Prosecution's failure to meet stringent standards of proof and procedural compliance under NDPS Act led to acquittal [Paras 42-45].

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Revision against Family Court order – Respondent wife and son filed application for maintenance alleging dowry harassment, cruelty, and non-consensual acts – Family Court directed revisionist to pay 25,000/- to wife and 20,000/- per month to son – Revision dismissed, upholding Family Court’s order [Paras 1-9, 26-29].

Cruelty and Non-consensual Acts – Allegations of dowry harassment and forced anal intercourse by husband – Revisionist argued anal sex not an offense post-Navtej Singh Johar ruling – Court held wife’s refusal valid due to physical incapacity and injuries – Mental cruelty claim by husband not substantiated [Paras 10-25].

Legal Precedents – Refers to principles in Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018) and Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) – Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC does not apply to Section 377 IPC for married couples – Physical incapacity due to injuries justifies wife’s refusal for non-consensual acts [Paras 10-15, 22-25].

Decision: Criminal revision dismissed – No interference in the Family Court’s order directing maintenance – Court finds wife’s allegations of cruelty substantiated and husband’s claims unproven [Paras 28-29].

No-confidence Motion – Special Meeting – Appeal from interim order staying special meeting convened to consider no-confidence motion against Up-Pramukh – Appeal and writ petition disposed together – Up-Pramukh contended no valid grounds for no-confidence – Court directed special meeting to proceed on specified date [Paras 1-9].

Panchayat Raj – Sections 69(2), 70(4)(i), 70(4)(ii), 70(4)(iv) – No-confidence motion against Up-Pramukh – Court held delegation of duties by Adhyaksh not necessary for no-confidence motion against Up-Pramukh – Special meeting to consider motion must proceed without Court evaluating the grounds [Paras 5-7].

Sindhu Devi Case – Distinguished – Court found prior case related to Act of 1993, requiring reasons in motion – Current Act requires reasons specified in notice but does not permit Court to assess validity of reasons [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Interim Order Set Aside – Appeal allowed – Writ petition rejected – Special meeting directed to be convened on specified date to consider no-confidence motion – Up-Pramukh prohibited from performing functions till special meeting [Para 9].
 

Criminal Law – Bail Application in Dowry Death Case – Petitioner, husband of the deceased Rekha @ Mamta, sought bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., contending her death resulted from an accidental fall. The petitioner argued that the injuries were minor and attributed the death to cardiac arrest. He claimed innocence and asserted the case was falsely foisted on him, lacking concrete evidence linking him directly to the crime [Paras 1-4].

Prima Facie Evidence and Gravity of Offense – The court found substantial prima facie evidence indicating an unnatural death. It noted discrepancies in the investigation, particularly the Investigating Officer’s assumption of an accidental fall, which was not supported by witness statements or medical reports. The court emphasized the seriousness and gravity of the allegations under Section 304-B, IPC, and the necessity of maintaining high accuracy in such investigations [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Bail Application Rejected – Bail application dismissed due to the serious nature of the allegations and the evidence on record. The court highlighted the investigative shortcomings and ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, and the Superintendent of Police concerned for necessary action [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Law – Bail – Prolonged Custody – Petitioner accused of murder, in judicial custody for 10 months, investigation complete and final report filed – Bail granted with stringent conditions.

Presumption of Innocence – Pre-conviction Imprisonment – Courts should not deny bail solely on public sentiment – Emphasis on presumption of innocence and right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution – Cites Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Discretion – Judicious Exercise – Emphasis on individual case facts and judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail – Reference to Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and State of Kerala v. Raneef [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Bail Application Allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions ensuring appearance, non-interference with evidence, and restricted movement – Court emphasizes compliance with bail conditions under risk of cancellation [Paras 11-12].
 

Contract Law – Revival of Terminated Contract – Petition challenging the revival of a contract that had been terminated by the awardee – The High Court held that a contract, once terminated after due process, cannot be revived by the awardee or any authority other than the Appellate Authority or the Court – Directions issued for fresh tender process [Paras 1-96].

Administrative Law – Powers of Chairman – The Court ruled that the Chairman or any other authority not being the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to order the revival of an already terminated contract – Emphasized the importance of transparency and fairness in the actions of state instrumentalities [Paras 49-92].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Affirmed that the High Court can interfere in contractual matters under Article 226 of the Constitution when the action is arbitrary or illegal – Reiterated principles of judicial review in contractual disputes involving state instrumentalities [Paras 61-74].

Decision:
(i)    The writ petition filed by PMP Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 200/2024) is allowed.
(ii)    The writ petition filed by Adhunik Khanan Va Parivahan Theka Sahkari Samiti (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 416/2024) stands disposed of.
(iii)    The impugned order dated December 26, 2023, is quashed and set aside. RSMML is directed to initiate a fresh tender process forthwith.
(iv)    The respondent RSMML may get the subject work done through any of the parties as deemed expedient until the fresh tender process is finalized [Paras 93-98].
 

Property Law – Declaration and Permanent Injunction – Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against defendants obstructing possession – Plaintiff traced title through sale deeds dating back to 1952 – Defendants contended joint ownership and lack of partition among family members – Both lower courts ruled in favor of plaintiff based on continuous possession and lack of evidence supporting defendants’ claims – Second Appeal dismissed confirming lower court judgments [Paras 1-19].

Substantial Questions of Law – Consideration of Joint Ownership and Partition – Courts examined whether plaintiff’s title was only to 1/3rd share and if joint family property was sold improperly – Found no partition and no substantial evidence of joint ownership by defendants – Defendants’ reliance on joint patta found insufficient – Held plaintiff had clear title and possession over entire suit property [Paras 9-18].

Procedure under Section 100 of CPC – Scope of Second Appeal – Substantial questions of law identified regarding title and joint ownership – Both lower courts’ findings upheld due to proper appreciation of evidence and legal principles – No misappreciation or perverse findings – Appeal found meritless and dismissed [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.

Criminal Law – Quashment of Proceedings – Settlement Not a Ground for Quashment in Serious Offences – Petitioner sought quashment of proceedings based on an affidavit by the victim, now of majority, stating no grievance at present. The court held that for serious offences such as rape, quashment on the basis of settlement cannot be entertained. High Court emphasized that serious offences involving moral turpitude cannot be settled privately due to their impact on society. Settlement in such cases would send a wrong signal and possibly benefit unscrupulous offenders. Quashment was denied despite the victim’s affidavit [Paras 1-10].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Jurisdiction – Serious Offences – High Court reiterated its power to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even in non-compoundable offences, but underscored the necessity to avoid quashing in cases of serious and heinous nature which affect societal interest. The court referred to various precedents underscoring the principle that settlement cannot be a basis for quashment in cases involving serious crimes like rape [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Criminal Miscellaneous Case Dismissed – Held that the allegations in the prosecution are serious and the case must be decided on merits. The prayer for quashment was denied and the interim stay vacated. The Special Court for trial of offences under the PoCSO Act, Cherthala, was directed to proceed with the trial [Para 10].