Education Law - University Examination – Scaling Down of Marks – Unlawful Application of Old Regulations – Petition Allowed – The petitioner was declared "fail" in a re-appear examination due to the University's reduction of his marks from 54/80 to 41/60 based on outdated regulations (60:40 ratio) – The Court held that since the petitioner appeared for the examination under the amended regulations (80:20 ratio), the reduction of marks was arbitrary and without legal backing – No provision of law authorized the scaling down, and the University’s reliance on past practices was deemed unjustifiable [Paras 16-20].

Impact on Student's Career – Compensation Awarded – The Court criticized the University's arbitrary actions, noting that they had jeopardized the petitioner’s academic career – As a result, the Court awarded Rs. 1,00,000 in exemplary costs to the petitioner and directed the Vice-Chancellor to take corrective measures within two months [Paras 25-30].

Decision: The petition was allowed. The result was set aside, and the University was directed to declare the petitioner "pass" based on his actual marks (54/80). The petitioner was awarded Rs. 1,00,000 in compensation, and the University was directed to issue his degree within two months.
 

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Enhancement of Maintenance – The petitioner, an elderly mother, sought enhancement of the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court – She argued that the current maintenance of ₹2000/- was insufficient for her needs, including medical expenses – Held: The court found that the petitioner was receiving a family pension and interest from bank deposits totaling approximately ₹13,457/- per month – Considering the maintenance awarded and her total income, the court ruled that the maintenance amount of ₹2000/- was adequate, taking into account the potential liability of her younger son as well – The revision petition was dismissed, and the request for enhancement was not accepted [Paras 12-20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – The court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to reappreciate evidence unless there is a clear case of perversity or a significant error – Citing Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, the court held that it is not within the court’s power to sit as an appellate body over findings of fact unless they are found to be completely unreasonable or unsupported by evidence [Paras 12-13].

Duty to Maintain Parents – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – The court reiterated that both sons have an equal legal and moral obligation to maintain their mother – The petitioner cannot single out one son for maintenance while disregarding the other's responsibility – This factor was considered in assessing the sufficiency of the maintenance awarded [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – Maintenance Held Adequate – The criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed – The court found that the maintenance amount of ₹2000/- awarded by the Family Court was sufficient when considering the petitioner's overall income and the obligation of her other son to contribute – No justifiable ground was found to interfere with the Family Court's order [Paras 20-22].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Offence under Section 307 IPC – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 506, and 307 IPC on the basis of a compromise with the aggrieved parties – FIR related to a fight in which grievous injuries were alleged – Aggrieved persons consented to quashing the FIR and confirmed the genuineness of the compromise before the Magistrate – Held: While Section 307 IPC is a serious and non-compoundable offence, the Court, relying on precedents, quashed the FIR in light of the compromise, noting that continuing the proceedings would not serve the purpose of justice – Petition allowed [Paras 6-7, 25-26].

Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Non-compoundable Offences – Quashing based on Compromise – The Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and proceedings, despite the non-compoundable nature of the offence under Section 307 IPC – Judicial precedents indicate that quashing is permissible where a compromise is genuine, and prosecution would be a futile exercise – Court emphasized that the settlement was voluntary, and the parties, belonging to the same community, had reconciled, thereby restoring peace – Held: Continuation of the proceedings would not serve any fruitful purpose [Paras 5, 7, 12, 18-20].

Judicial Precedents – Section 307 IPC – Reference made to Ram Prasad v. State of UP, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and other Supreme Court rulings, which allow quashing of cases under Section 307 IPC in certain circumstances, such as when injuries are not grave and parties have reached a genuine settlement – Held: In the present case, given the lack of serious injuries and the voluntary settlement, quashing is justified [Paras 7, 8, 11].

Decision: FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed under Section 482 CrPC – Petition allowed – Bail bonds of the petitioners discharged [Para 26].

Ancestral Property and Ownership Claims – Petitioners asserted that the property in dispute, allotted to their grandfather in 1974, was ancestral and a shared household – Contention rejected as petitioners never challenged the mutation of the property in the name of their father Jagdish Prasad in 1992-93 – Held: Petitioners’ claim of shared ownership barred by law of limitation and lacking evidence [Paras 19-21A].

Eviction of Petitioners under Senior Citizens Act – Petitioners sought to challenge the eviction order passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Held: Sub Divisional Officer’s order directing eviction was valid, as it addressed the nuisance caused to the senior citizen (respondent No.3) and complied with Rule 20 of M.P. Senior Citizen Rules, 2009, aimed at protecting life and property of senior citizens – No misuse of Section 23 of the Act as there was no transfer of property to the petitioners [Paras 24-27].

Applicability of Judgments – Petitioners placed reliance on Supreme Court judgments in Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and Smt. S. Vanitha vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District – Court held that neither of these judgments applied to the present case – No transfer of property or rights under the Domestic Violence Act involved – Misapplication of case law by petitioners noted and deprecated [Paras 28-31].

Final Decision – Petition dismissed – Petitioners found to have been prolonging litigation since 2020 without merit – Court imposed costs of Rs.10,000 on the petitioners for misuse of legal process – Compliance with the eviction order to be carried out immediately [Paras 32-33].

Civil Procedure – Written Statement – Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC – Revision petition filed challenging the acceptance of a written statement beyond the stipulated 90 days – Plaintiff contended that the trial court erred in allowing the written statement without a formal application for condonation of delay – Held: The court cannot extend time for filing the written statement on its own, and an application for condonation is mandatory – Written statement filed after 30 days requires a valid application explaining the delay, in accordance with judicial precedents such as Salem Advocate Bar Association and Kailash v. Nanhku [Paras 6, 10, 12].

Judicial Discretion – Condonation of Delay – Written Statement Filing – Defendant filed the written statement late without seeking condonation of delay – The trial court accepted the written statement without recording reasons – Held: The trial court’s acceptance of the written statement without a condonation application violates Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, and the defendant must file an application explaining the delay [Paras 9, 10, 12].

Inherent Power of the Court – Article 227 of the Constitution – Plaintiff invoked Article 227 seeking judicial intervention against the trial court’s procedural lapses – Held: The inherent power of the Court under Article 227 allows rectification of procedural errors, and the trial court’s failure to follow due process in accepting the late written statement justifies interference [Paras 8, 11, 12].

Decision: Allowed – The order of the trial court dated 02.08.2023 accepting the written statement set aside – The respondent is granted liberty to file a written statement along with an application for condonation of delay – CRP(MD)No.1853 of 2024 closed as infructuous [Paras 13, 14].

Criminal Procedure – Acquittal – Victim's Right to Appeal – The petitioner, a de facto complainant, challenged the acquittal of the accused under various sections of the IPC, arguing that as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, he had the right to appeal – The Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner could not be termed a 'victim' – Held: The High Court observed that under Section 372 of the CrPC, a victim has the right to appeal against an acquittal – The petitioner, having alleged loss, injury, and damage caused by the accused, falls within the definition of 'victim' and therefore had the right to appeal – [Paras 7, 10, 18, 22].

Criminal Law – Trial Procedure – Non-Examination under Section 313 CrPC – The petitioner contended that the trial court erred in not examining the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC – The trial court acquitted the accused without recording their statements – Held: The High Court found that the trial court did not err, as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused that necessitated examination under Section 313 – Since the primary witnesses (PW1 and PW2) did not provide any evidence against the accused, the trial court's decision was upheld – [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Contempt of Court – Allegations Against Magistrate – The petitioner accused the trial magistrate of obtaining signatures on blank papers and of improper conduct – Held: The High Court found the allegations baseless and without substance – It was determined that such allegations could amount to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – The petitioner was directed to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him – [Paras 28, 29, 31].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – The High Court found no error in the trial court’s procedure or the acquittal of the accused – The petitioner was directed to show cause for allegations against the magistrate amounting to criminal contempt – [Paras 35, 37].

Section 295A of IPC – Outrage of Religious Feelings – Shouting ‘Jai Sriram’ in a Mosque – Not Outrageous – The petitioners were accused of entering a mosque and shouting ‘Jai Sriram’ with the intent of disrupting communal harmony. The court held that shouting ‘Jai Sriram’ does not constitute an insult or malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings under Section 295A of the IPC, particularly when there is no disruption of public order or deliberate insult to religious beliefs – Petitioners' actions did not meet the threshold for criminal offense under the said section [Paras 5-6].

Criminal Intimidation under Section 506 of IPC – Ingredients Not Established – The complaint alleged that the petitioners threatened the mosque members. However, the court found that the complaint did not specify any actionable threats or fear of harm that would amount to criminal intimidation under Section 506. The lack of specific allegations led the court to dismiss this charge [Paras 6-7].

Abuse of Process – Quashing of FIR – No Prima Facie Case – The court observed that none of the alleged acts committed by the petitioners met the essential ingredients required for the offenses under Sections 447, 295A, 505, or 506 IPC. Continuing the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. – The petition was allowed, and the FIR and all related proceedings were quashed [Paras 7-8].

Decision:

The writ petition was allowed, and the entire proceedings in Crime No. 86 of 2023 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, were quashed.

Anticipatory Bail – Conditions Imposed – Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Freedom of Press – The petitioner, a journalist and managing editor of a YouTube news channel, was granted anticipatory bail with a condition that he should not publish news related to the death of Bishop K.P. Yohannan – Held: The condition restricting the petitioner’s journalistic freedom was unreasonable – The right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution cannot be curtailed as part of a bail condition unless justified under Article 19(2) – The Court deleted the condition restraining the petitioner from airing news on the subject, observing that such a condition amounts to a gag order, which is disproportionate and violates the petitioner’s fundamental rights [Paras 12-17].

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Complaint for dishonor of cheques under Section 138 of the NI Act – The petitioner, residing outside the territorial jurisdiction, argued that the Magistrate should have conducted an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before issuing summons – Held: Under Section 145 of the NI Act, evidence of the complainant can be given by affidavit, which streamlines the trial process. The Magistrate’s role is to decide whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. If evidence supports the complaint, an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC is not mandatory for public servants – Complaint supported by an affidavit is sufficient for issuing process [Paras 3c, 3e, 5a, 9].

Criminal Procedure – Section 202 CrPC – Applicability in NI Act Cases – Whether the amendment of Section 202 CrPC mandates an inquiry before issuing process to an accused residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Court – Held: Section 202 CrPC is not mandatory in complaints under Section 138 NI Act supported by an affidavit, especially when filed by a public servant – No infirmity found in the orders of the Magistrate or Sessions Judge rejecting the application for an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC [Paras 4, 4a, 4c, 9].

Decision: Criminal Revision Application Dismissed – The order passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the Learned Chief Judge was affirmed – The court upheld the validity of the summons issued to the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act without a mandatory inquiry under Section 202 CrPC – The Magistrate had examined the complaint and accompanying affidavit, and therefore, no further inquiry was required before issuing process [Paras 3d, 5, 9].