Criminal Law - Writ of Mandamus and Transfer of Investigation -  Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to transfer investigation of Crime No. 212/2024 from Mannanthala Police Station to a higher-ranking officer, preferably of IPS cadre - Petitioner, a healthcare professional, alleges biased investigation due to political influence - Court finds ongoing investigation without bias, despite delay in arrest - Directs Investigating Officer to conduct fair and unbiased investigation - Petition disposed of with liberty to petitioner to re-approach if investigation seems improper. [Paras 1-4, 13]

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail -  Bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the accused in the same crime - Allegations of molestation and abuse of a doctor in her clinic - Prosecution provides substantial evidence including victim's statement and CCTV footage - Court emphasizes necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation - Anticipatory bail denied considering seriousness of allegations and the non-bailable nature of offences under amended Healthcare Act. [Paras 5-12]

Trend of Violence Against Healthcare Professionals -  Court notes increasing instances of violence against doctors and hospital staff - Refers to legislative amendment making such offences non-bailable - Highlights the need for strict enforcement to deter such crimes - Upholds importance of custodial interrogation in serious cases involving healthcare professionals to ensure thorough investigation. [Paras 11-12]

Decision:- Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3364 of 2024 dismissed.- Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 385 of 2024 disposed of, directing current Investigating Officer to continue investigation fairly.

Criminal Law – Offences under Sections 354, 294(b), 323 IPC and Section 4(1)(i) of Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Amendment Act, 2023 – Petition for transfer of investigation and anticipatory bail – High Court’s dismissal of bail application and writ petition – Importance of custodial interrogation emphasized by Court – Judicial scrutiny upheld the need for arrest to ensure thorough investigation – Dismissal of anticipatory bail based on severity of allegations and existing evidence [Paras 1-12].

Evidence Evaluation – Court evaluated statements and case diary indicating prima facie evidence supporting the complainant’s allegations – Court found allegations credible and necessitated further investigation, rejecting anticipatory bail – Judicial scrutiny confirmed investigation was conducted appropriately without bias, but with an emphasis on necessity for arrest and custodial interrogation [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Dismissal of Bail Application and Disposition of Writ Petition – Held – Bail application was dismissed due to serious nature of allegations and necessity for custodial interrogation – Writ petition for transfer of investigation dismissed as current investigation was deemed satisfactory – Defacto complainant given liberty to re-approach the Court if further issues with investigation arise. [Para 13].

Criminal Law – FIR Quashing – Sections 420, 120-B IPC – Alleged Evasion of Stamp Duty – Petitioners sold property recorded as residential land in revenue records – FIR alleged commercial land sold as residential to evade stamp duty – Petitioners contended liability to pay stamp duty rests on purchaser – Court found no misdescription by petitioners regarding land use – FIR quashed [Paras 2-29].

Mens Rea – Essential Element of Crime – Absence of Criminal Intent – No False Declaration – Petitioners did not misrepresent land use – Absence of mens rea for evading stamp duty – Investigating Agency’s action deemed misuse of authority [Paras 20-27].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – High Court's Interference – Criminal Proceedings – FIR found inherently improbable – Allegations insufficient to make out prima facie case – Investigation not warranted [Paras 9-11, 26-29].

Decision: FIR in Crime No.88/2022 registered by EOW, Bhopal quashed. Petition allowed.

Criminal Procedure – Preliminary Enquiry – Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Requirement for Enquiry – Petitioner argued that court should have conducted a preliminary enquiry before ordering prosecution under Sections 340 & 344 Cr.P.C. – Court held that preliminary enquiry is not mandatory if the court can form a prima facie opinion – Petition dismissed [Paras 4-39].

Forged Documents – Issuance and False Evidence – Tehsildar's Actions – Allegations of Forgery – Trial court found that petitioner, as Tehsildar, issued a forged patta and provided false evidence – Directions for criminal action justified – Upheld by High Court [Paras 3-39].

Judicial Review – Certiorari and Mandamus – Scope and Limitations – Writ petition to quash order and prevent action against petitioner dismissed – No interference warranted when trial court followed procedure [Paras 7-10].

Decision:

Petition dismissed. Collector, Chhatarpur directed to proceed with actions as per trial court’s recommendations.

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – Appellants convicted under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, and 323 IPC – Based on eyewitness accounts, TIP, and recovery of weapons – High Court upholds conviction, finding no legal infirmity in trial court’s judgment – Evidence sufficiently corroborates prosecution’s case [Paras 1-20].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Two key eyewitnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.6, provided consistent accounts of the incident – Their testimonies corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of weapons – High Court finds no contradictions or unreliability in their statements [Para 13].

Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Legality and Procedure – TIP conducted lawfully in presence of Magistrate – Accused properly identified by eyewitnesses – High Court dismisses contention of procedural lapses, confirming TIP’s validity [Paras 14-14.2].

Recovery of Weapon – Forensic Evidence – Lathi recovered from appellant Karni Singh found with bloodstains – Corroborates eyewitness testimony and strengthens prosecution’s case – High Court considers recovery as valid evidence [Paras 11.1, 17].

Motive and Intention – Prior Enmity – Prosecution established motive based on prior enmity between parties – Appellants acted with common intention to commit murder – High Court affirms conviction based on motive and cumulative evidence [Para 18].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – Appellants to be taken into custody to serve remaining sentence – Bail bonds cancelled [Paras 19-21].

Criminal Procedure – FIR Quashing – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Allegations of dowry harassment and assault – Petitioner claims false implication due to long-standing family estrangement – Court examines specific allegations and finds prima facie case warranting investigation – Application dismissed [Paras 1-18].

Investigation – Role of Accused – Right to Influence – Accused has no right to dictate the manner of investigation – Allegations must be investigated without interference from accused [Paras 13-15].

Natural Justice – Application in Criminal Investigation – Accused not entitled to prior hearing or choice of investigating agency – Consistent view that accused cannot demand specific investigation methods [Paras 24-30].

Decision:

Application for quashing the FIR dismissed. Investigation to proceed.

Criminal Law – Conviction on Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife – Prosecution based on circumstantial evidence, including extra-judicial confession and footprints at the crime scene – High Court finds inconsistencies in prosecution's evidence, including contradictions in witness statements and lack of forensic evidence – Conviction quashed due to failure to meet standards for circumstantial evidence [Paras 1-25].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Reliability – High Court notes extra-judicial confession was a weak piece of evidence and recorded after a significant delay – Confession by appellant to relatives of the complainant, viewed as insufficient to sustain conviction [Para 14.1].

Footprints as Evidence – High Court finds no forensic examination conducted on footprints alleged to be of the appellant – Presence of footprints at the crime scene not conclusively linked to the appellant, creating doubt about their reliability as evidence [Para 16].

Motive and Last Seen Theory – Prosecution's assertion of marital discord as motive not substantiated – Alleged "last seen" theory undermined by lack of corroborative evidence – High Court emphasizes need for complete and cogent chain of evidence in circumstantial cases [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – High Court directs discharge of bail bonds – Case emphasizes strict scrutiny required for circumstantial evidence to uphold a conviction [Paras 25-26].

Affiliation Fee – Discrepancy in Payment – Petitioner institute applied for annual affiliation for academic session 2024-25 – University’s online portal automatically generated fee details, showing a shortfall of Rs.60 – University demanded penalty equal to the amount of affiliation fee due to the shortfall – Petitioner argued automatic generation of details and non-intentional shortfall – High Court quashes university’s demand for full penalty, imposing a reduced penalty instead [Paras 2-16].

Procedural Fairness – Online Payment System – Petitioner contends that discrepancy arose from university’s online system generating incorrect fee details – High Court finds communication delay by university contributed to issue – Orders reduced penalty in lieu of full amount demanded [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned orders quashed – Petitioner to pay Rs.60 shortfall and Rs.1,00,000 penalty – Respondent to grant affiliation if all other requisites are fulfilled – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 16].

Medical Reimbursement – Ayushman Bharat Scheme – Respondent underwent heart surgery and incurred Rs.1,24,000 in expenses at petitioner hospital – Hospital charged respondent as no proof of insurance under Ayushman Bharat Scheme was provided – Post-treatment, respondent submitted requisite documents to District Collector for reimbursement, which was denied – Permanent Lok Adalat directed hospital to reimburse Rs.1,16,420 plus Rs.5000 costs – High Court upholds reimbursement order, quashing cost imposition [Paras 1-14].

Delayed Submission of Documents – Respondent’s family did not submit insurance proof during critical treatment – High Court finds this does not disqualify respondent from benefits under Ayushman Bharat Scheme – Proper documents submitted post-treatment entitles reimbursement – Hospital to seek reimbursement from State Government [Paras 6-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed – Petitioner to reimburse Rs.1,16,420 to respondent within two weeks upon submission of insurance documents – Petitioner to seek reimbursement from State Government within eight weeks – Rs.5000 cost imposed by Lok Adalat quashed [Paras 12-14].