Criminal Law - Bail Application - Petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for FIR No. 417 registered under IPC Sections 302 and 34 after deletion of IPC Sections 147, 148, 149 - Petitioner implicated based on a confessional statement and not named initially in the FIR - Key witnesses, including the complainant and deceased's son, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case - Circumstantial evidence with no motive demonstrated against petitioner - Bail granted considering the petitioner’s clean antecedents, absence of criminal history, and the improbability of influencing remaining witnesses - Hostility of key witnesses and absence of direct evidence highlighted - Court emphasizes that observations are not an opinion on the merits of the case. Bail Allowed. [Paras 1-5]

Quashing of Order under Section 207 Cr.P.C. - Petitioner sought quashing of order that denied supply of documents listed as 'unrelied upon' by CBI in the seizure memo (D/5) - Supreme Court earlier ordered the provision of materials supplied to the deceased's family to the petitioner - Court findings highlighted that materials provided to the petitioner included all 'relied upon' documents, and those supplied to the family of the deceased as per Supreme Court’s direction - Documents sought by petitioner, listed under Sr. No. 6(a) and 6(b) of the seizure memo, not relied upon by prosecution nor included in materials provided to the family of the deceased - Petitioner's entitlement under Section 207 limited to 'relied upon' documents - Petition for unfettered access to case diaries denied due to statutory restrictions under Section 172(3) Cr.P.C. - Court concluded no prejudice to the petitioner as all relied upon documents were provided - Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-12]

Abetment of Suicide – Revision against charges under Section 305 IPC – Analysis of the legal and factual circumstances surrounding the alleged abetment of suicide by a teacher accused of harassing a student leading to the latter’s suicide – Held – No evidence of specific acts of harassment or intentional inducement by the teacher that could have led the student to commit suicide – Order and charge-sheet quashed based on lack of evidence of abetment. [Paras 2-17]

Role of Teacher and Student Interaction – Scrutiny of interactions between the accused teacher and the deceased student – Examination of school committee findings and absence of specific allegations of harassment in suicide note – Held – Actions of the teacher within normal disciplinary bounds; no direct or indirect acts to support claims of abetment to suicide. [Paras 5-14, 16]

Judicial Precedents on Abetment of Suicide – Discussion of case law concerning abetment of suicide and its applicability to the case at hand – Reference to Supreme Court and High Court rulings that delineate the boundaries of abetment under IPC sections – Held – Current allegations and evidence do not meet the required legal threshold for abetment of suicide. [Paras 10-13, 17]

Order – Quashing of Charge and Discharge of Petitioner – Court sets aside the impugned order and charge-sheet against the petitioner, discharging him from the accusations based on insufficiency of evidence pointing to abetment of suicide. [Para 17]

Criminal Procedure - Section 207 Cr.P.C. - Access to Documents - Petitioner, accused in a criminal matter, contests the non-disclosure of certain documents listed in the seizure memo which the CBI has classified as ‘unrelied upon’ and hence not provided to her - Court clarifies that Section 207 Cr.P.C. mandates the supply to the accused only those documents/materials 'relied upon' by the prosecution - Documents classified as ‘unrelied upon’ can be sought under Section 91 Cr.P.C. during trial but not at the stage of framing of charges [Paras 6, 8-10].

Investigation Documents - Section 172(3) Cr.P.C. prohibits disclosure of police case diaries to the accused - Court upholds statutory restriction, denying petitioner’s request for access to case diaries from the initial police investigation and supervision notes, emphasizing the safeguarding of informants and integrity of the investigation process - Right to inspect such documents under specific sections of the Evidence Act recognized but restricted by Cr.P.C. [Paras 11-12].

Fair Trial - Supreme Court’s directive interpreted to ensure fair trial rights by requiring disclosure of 'relied upon' materials and a list of 'unrelied upon' materials to the accused, enhancing transparency but not mandating provision of all seized items at the pre-trial stage [Para 7].

Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, confirming the order of the CBI Court which ruled that only documents 'relied upon' by the prosecution need to be furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. - Unrelied upon documents remain undisclosed at this stage [Para 12].

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Order - Petitioner seeking access to documents deemed 'unrelied upon' by the prosecution - Documents part of seizure memo but not listed in charge sheet as being relied upon by the prosecution - High Court holds that under Section 207 Cr.P.C., only documents 'relied upon' by prosecution need to be supplied to the accused - 'Unrelied upon' documents can only be sought under Section 91 Cr.P.C. during trial if necessary [Paras 6, 7, 8].

Procedural Requirements and Fair Trial – Analysis – Upheld – High Court stresses importance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. in ensuring accused's right to fair trial, but clarifies its limitations to documents ‘relied upon’ by prosecution – Court dismisses contention that 'unrelied upon' documents should be supplied at current stage – Adheres to Supreme Court's guidelines on handling of such materials in criminal proceedings. [Paras 6, 7, 9, 12]

Statutory Provisions on Document Supply – Interpretation and Application – Decided – High Court delineates scope of Sections 172(3), 207, and 91 Cr.P.C. concerning access to case diaries and other materials not directly relied upon by prosecution – Asserts that comprehensive access cannot be granted under Section 207 but may be sought under Section 91 at appropriate trial stages. [Paras 10-11]

Decision – Denial of Petition for Document Supply – High Court denies the petition for document supply under Section 207 Cr.P.C., reiterates the criteria for document provision during trial stages, and confirms the order of the learned Special Judge, CBI, Chandigarh. [Para 12]

Property Law – Declaration of Title – Appeals arising from concurrent findings of lower courts favoring plaintiffs' claim over land ownership based on revenue records – Trial Court decreed suits in favor of plaintiffs, granting declaration and injunction – Appellate Court upheld findings – High Court scrutinizes reliance on revenue records as basis for title declaration, emphasizing need for documentary proof of title [Paras 1-10].

Evidence – Revenue Records – Legal weight of revenue records as evidence of ownership – Courts below erred in granting title based on revenue entries without substantive title deeds – Admission by defendants about possession and entries in revenue records insufficient to confer title [Paras 11-25].

Adverse Possession – Claims by defendants of perfected title through adverse possession – Defendants' failure to substantiate continuous, hostile possession – High Court reiterates burden of proof lies on defendants to establish adverse possession [Paras 26-30].

Legal Standards – High Court refers to Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that revenue records alone do not constitute title – Importance of title deeds in suits for declaration and injunction [Paras 31-35].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – Relief of declaration set aside – Relief of perpetual injunction upheld – Trial and Appellate Courts' judgments modified accordingly [Paras 36-38].

Trademark Dispute – Prior Use of Trademark – Plaintiff claims prior usage of 'TIGER' mark from June 2003, substantiated with evidence like invoices and surveillance footage showing use in trade of agricultural pipes - Defendant filed for trademark registration on a 'proposed to be used' basis in 2017 and admitted to copying the mark post-employment – Submissions and invoices by plaintiff confirm consistent use of 'TIGER' brand since 2003 and substantial reputation and goodwill in market – Defendant’s adoption of mark considered dishonest [Paras 6.1-6.14, 9-11, 13-16].

Evidence – Importance of documentary and video evidence – Invoices with 'TIGER BRAND' watermark since 2005, surveillance video from 2014 corroborating plaintiff’s claims – Defendant's contradictory evidence regarding trademark usage timeline weakens defense [Paras 3-5, 11-13].

Legal Precedents on Trademark and Dishonest Adoption – Reliance on cases like Ishi Khosla v. Anil Aggarwal (2007) and Copenhagen Hospitality and Retails v. A.R. Impex (2022) to establish guidelines on dishonest adoption and impact of prior contractual relationships in trademark disputes – Importance of defending trademark against significant market confusion only, not all infringements [Paras 16.1-16.4].

Decision: Preliminary injunction granted in favor of plaintiff – Defendant restrained from using 'TIGER' mark or any similar marks in connection with their products, due to evidence of prior use and registration by plaintiff, and dishonest adoption by defendant – Defendant must withdraw all current uses of the mark within 3 weeks [Paras 17-18].

Petitioner Challenge to CIC Order – Petitioner, an educational institute, challenges CIC's directive to provide comprehensive information to respondent as per RTI Act, arguing information requested is voluminous and burdensome – High Court upholds CIC order, rejects petitioner's argument that compiling information would be overly burdensome, emphasizes RTI Act’s objective to facilitate transparency - [Paras 1, 5-7, 9, 11-14].

Right to Information – CIC found petitioner deprived respondent of benefits of RTI Act by not providing requested information – Directed provision of complete information within 30 days, dismissed petitioner's argument on information volume as adding unofficial exemption to RTI Act - [Paras 5, 7, 13-14].

Judicial Review – High Court finds no valid exemption under Section 8 of RTI Act applies to requested information, dismisses writ petition, underscores mandate and spirit of RTI Act for transparency and accountability in public institutions - [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed, no interference with CIC's order, emphasis on non-existence of conflict between rights to information inspection and obtaining copies under RTI Act - [Para 16].

Referred Cases: None mentioned specifically.

Quashing of Notifications – Land Acquisition – Challenge to the acquisition process under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Petitioners seek quashing of two notifications (Annexures P-1 and P-3) for the acquisition of land for residential development in Sectors 1 and 2, Palwal – High Court upholds the validity of notifications and acquisition process, emphasizing compliance with statutory provisions and rejection of objections by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act. [Paras 1-2, 5-9]

Precedent and Misplaced Reliance – Distinction in Facts and Legal Context – Petitioners' reliance on a previous decision of the High Court (CWP No. 15546 of 1995) rejected due to differences in geographical location and specific circumstances of the case – Current notifications pertain to Palwal, not covered by the previous decision concerning Faridabad. [Paras 11-12]

Non-Applicability of the Act of 2013 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – High Court finds that the petitioners' lands were acquired before the Act of 2013 came into force and adequate compensation measures were taken, disallowing the application of Section 24(2) for lapsing of acquisition. [Paras 16-18, 22-24]

Final Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Court finds no merit in the petitioners' claims, maintains the acquisition notifications and awards, and directs the acquiring authority to proceed with lawful awards where necessary. [Paras 25-28]