Discrepancies in Examination Results – Petitioner alleged that the NTA uploaded two different response sheets and scorecards for her JEE (Mains) exam, with significant differences in scores – High Court examined the validity of the claim and the procedural integrity of NTA's system [Paras 1-2, 14].

Validity of Scorecards – Petitioner claimed the first response sheet and scorecard, showing a 99.8493935 percentile score, were correct – NTA asserted these were fabricated, and the second set, showing a 74.5733907 percentile score, was accurate – High Court scrutinized the consistency and procedural integrity of the examination records [Paras 3-6, 16-19].

Disputed Facts in Writ Jurisdiction – High Court reiterated the principle that disputed questions of fact typically require evidence and are not suitable for adjudication under Article 226 – Found no prima facie case to support the petitioner's claim and deemed the issue too factually dense for writ jurisdiction [Paras 22-36].

Conclusion – Court found the petitioner’s first scorecard and response sheet inconsistent with NTA’s records and procedures – Dismissed the petition, stating further investigation would necessitate a detailed factual inquiry inappropriate for writ proceedings [Paras 35-37].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – High Court did not find sufficient grounds to accept the petitioner’s assertion of two sets of response sheets and scorecards being issued by NTA – No orders as to costs [Para 37].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Compulsory Retirement – Appellant bank challenged the decision of the Single Judge, which had set aside the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent – Charges included tardy action and unauthorized loan sanctioning – Inquiry officer found most charges proved except charge no. 23 – Single Judge remanded the proceedings for reconsideration, noting procedural and substantive deficiencies in the assessment by the disciplinary and appellate authorities [Paras 7-13, 23-24].

Appellate Review – Procedural Fairness – High Court emphasized the need for a fair and thorough appraisal of evidence in disciplinary matters – Criticized the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority for not adequately addressing the respondent’s defense and for procedural lapses – Court upheld the Single Judge’s findings, asserting the importance of addressing both procedural and substantive aspects in disciplinary reviews [Paras 12, 22-24, 26].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Single Judge’s order remanding the disciplinary proceedings for a fair reappraisal of evidence upheld – No merit found in the appellant’s arguments against the detailed reasoning of the Single Judge – Directions issued for expeditious reconsideration of the disciplinary proceedings [Paras 25-27, 30].

Criminal Law - Acquittal for Murder - Government Appeal against trial court’s judgment acquitting accused of murder charges under Section 302/34 IPC - Trial court convicted accused for causing simple injuries under Section 323/34 IPC - Prosecution alleged that accused snatched a one-year-old child from her mother's lap and threw her on the ground, leading to her death - Post-mortem report indicated death due to shock and haemorrhage from a ruptured spleen with no external injuries - Prosecution witnesses' testimonies inconsistent and contradicted by medical evidence - Held, prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder - Acquittal for murder charges affirmed. [Paras 20-23, 36-39, 46-47]

Injury Causing - Conviction for Simple Injuries - Prosecution established that accused inflicted simple injuries on complainants during altercation - Medical evidence corroborated injuries consistent with blunt force trauma - Trial court’s finding of guilt under Section 323/34 IPC supported by consistent testimonies of injured witnesses and medical reports - Conviction for simple injuries upheld. [Paras 33-34, 48]

Procedural Aspects - Charges Framing - Discrepancy in charges framed by trial court noted - Separate charges for individual accused under Section 302 IPC and joint charges under Section 302/34 IPC - Alteration unexplained by prosecution - Emphasized importance of clarity in charges framing. [Para 45]

Decision - Dismissal of Government Appeal - Appeal challenging acquittal under Section 302/34 IPC dismissed - Trial court’s judgment affirmed - Conviction and sentence for simple injuries under Section 323/34 IPC sustained - No order as to costs. [Paras 49-51]

Criminal Law – Summoning and Cognizance Orders – Quashing of summoning and cognizance orders along with consequential orders due to lack of application of judicial mind and procedural irregularities – No evidence indicating the applicants intended to cause death or had knowledge their actions would result in death – Demolition leading to accidental death does not meet criteria for culpable homicide [Paras 1-20, 23-26].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Exercise of inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Applicants wrongfully implicated without substantial evidence – Police presence during incident with no preventive measures taken [Paras 27-38].

Legal Principles – Application of Mind – Magistrate’s duty to apply judicial mind and provide reasons in orders – Summoning orders without detailed reasoning or assessment of prima facie case liable to be quashed – Emphasis on careful scrutiny of allegations and evidence before issuing summons [Paras 29-33].

Decision – Application Allowed – Summoning and cognizance orders dated 30.03.2016, orders dated 11.01.2018 and 11.07.2018, and charge sheet dated 13.07.2015 quashed – Entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 16768 of 2016 set aside – Directions for trial court compliance [Paras 37-41].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. –

Allegations of dowry harassment and domestic violence – FIR against entire family of husband including those living separately – Specific allegations only against husband and parents – General, vague, and bald allegations against others – No prima facie case against distant relatives – Court cites Supreme Court's caution against roping in distant relatives without specific instances – FIR quashed for distant relatives – Continuance against husband and parents upheld [Paras 1-16].

Procedure under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Abuse of process – Emphasis on specific allegations for prosecution – Application of judgments from Supreme Court cases to ensure fair trial – General allegations insufficient to prosecute relatives without details – Court's intervention to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 10-14].

Decision: FIR quashed against petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 – Petition infructuous for petitioners Nos. 4 to 7 – Investigating Officer to proceed against petitioner No. 3 in accordance with law [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Procedure – Registration of FIR – Complaint Handling Post Cognizance – Petitioner challenged the order directing registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. after the Magistrate recorded the complainant’s statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. – Held that once cognizance was taken by recording the statement, the Magistrate could not issue directions for FIR registration under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Such directions can only be issued at a pre-cognizance stage [Paras 1-10].

Procedure under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Emphasized that direction under Section 156(3) for FIR registration is not permissible post-cognizance by the Magistrate – Highlighted the Supreme Court’s stance in “M/S Sas Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Telangana” regarding the stages at which FIR directions can be issued [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Quashing of the order and FIR – Orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and consequent FIR quashed – Directed the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the law without requiring pre-process hearing from the accused [Paras 10-11].

Insecticides Act – Prosecution of Employees without Company as Accused – Quashing of Proceedings – High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu quashed proceedings against petitioners, employees of Godrej Consumer Products Ltd., for offences under Sections 29(1)(a)(i) and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. – Petitioners challenged trial court’s process issuance without arraying the company as accused, arguing violation of Section 22 and Section 24 of the Act. – Court found the company’s inclusion necessary for proceeding against employees. – Proceedings and order against petitioners quashed. [Paras 1-13]

Legal Representation – Petitioners represented by Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate. – Respondent represented by Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG. [Intro]

Issue 1 – Company’s Absence in Complaint – Court observed that under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, prosecution against employees requires the company to be arraigned as an accused. – Reliance on Supreme Court judgment in Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy (2019) 3 SCC 797, emphasizing that vicarious liability of employees cannot be invoked without prosecuting the company. [Paras 9-12]

Issue 2 – Violation of Sections 22 and 24 – Not examined as determination of Issue 1 was sufficient to decide the matter. [Para 8]

Decision – Quashing of Proceedings – Held – The complaint proceedings against the petitioners pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, are quashed due to the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused. [Paras 13-14]

Appointment of Non-Teaching Staff – Requirement of Prior Approval – Appellant challenged the decision of the Single Judge which quashed the orders of the DIOS disapproving the appointment of the respondent as an Assistant Clerk – Argument that minority institutions are exempt from seeking prior approval as per Regulation 101 of the Act – Single Judge held Regulation 101 inapplicable to minority institutions, affirming the appointment of the respondent and directing financial sanction and salary payment – High Court held that Regulation 101 applies to all aided institutions, including minority institutions, and mandates prior DIOS approval – Judgment of Single Judge set aside [Paras 1-56].
Minority Educational Institutions – Regulatory Provisions – Applicability of Regulation 101 – Detailed examination of Regulation 101 which mandates prior DIOS approval for filling non-teaching posts in aided institutions – Analysis of Supreme Court rulings affirming the regulation's applicability to both minority and non-minority institutions – Emphasis on the necessity of regulatory oversight for ensuring lawful appointments and proper utilization of state aid [Paras 44-53].
Recruitment Process – Validity of Appointment – The respondent's appointment as Assistant Clerk found invalid due to non-compliance with Regulation 101 – Advertisement for the post lacked essential details and the appointment letter was deficient – High Court concluded that the appointment process was flawed and lacked transparency – Importance of adhering to prescribed procedures for fair and legitimate recruitment [Paras 30-34, 53-54].
Conclusion – Special Appeal Allowed – Single Judge's judgment reversed – Held – Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is fully applicable to aided minority institutions – Appointment of the respondent without prior DIOS approval is invalid – Directive issued for compliance with regulatory requirements in future recruitment processes [Paras 55-56].
Decision: Special Appeal Allowed – Judgment and order of Single Judge set aside – Appointment of respondent as Assistant Clerk declared invalid due to non-compliance with Regulation 101 – Emphasis on mandatory prior DIOS approval for filling non-teaching posts in aided institutions, including minority institutions.
 

Ancestral vs. Self-Acquired Property – Suit by sons challenging the self-acquired nature of property decreed in favor of grandsons – Trial Court held land in village Salala as self-acquired based on a sale deed and land in village Pattar Kalan as ancestral – Appeals filed by both parties – First Appellate Court dismissed all appeals without considering application for additional evidence – High Court remanded matter to First Appellate Court for re-evaluation [Paras 1-15].

Additional Evidence – Appellants' application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for producing additional evidence not decided by the First Appellate Court – High Court directed First Appellate Court to decide on the application and then re-evaluate the appeals – Emphasized statutory right to lead additional evidence and the necessity for Appellate Courts to consider such applications before final decision [Paras 10-14].

Relief – Judgments and decrees dated 07.02.1992 by the First Appellate Court set aside – Matters remanded back for fresh decision considering the application for additional evidence – Appellate Court directed to expedite decision within nine months [Paras 15-15].