Criminal Law – Right to Access Documents under CrPC and POCSO Act – Affidavit Requirement by Special Judge – Held Unwarranted – Accused’s Right to Certified Copies Upheld – The High Court of Kerala quashed the order of the Special Judge directing the petitioner’s counsel to file an affidavit stating that the copy of the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC would not be misused. The Court held that the accused has a statutory right under Section 207 CrPC to access relevant documents, including statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, without such conditions, as the statutory provisions and Supreme Court directives sufficiently safeguard the interests of victims. [Paras 1-14].

Constitutional Law – Right to Practice Profession – Protection of Legal Practitioners’ Duties – The High Court emphasized that imposing conditions on lawyers without any foundation is an interference in their right to practice, which is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and governed by the Advocates’ Act. The Court held that lawyers, as officers of the court, are expected to perform their duties legally and ethically, and unnecessary apprehensions should not lead to imposing unwarranted conditions. [Paras 13-14].

Evidence Evaluation – Safeguards Against Misuse of Victim’s Statements – Adequacy of Existing Legal Provisions – The Court noted that various statutory provisions, including Section 228-A IPC, Sections 23 and 33(7) of the POCSO Act, and the IT Act, along with Supreme Court directives in cases like Sakshi v. Union of India and Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, provide adequate protection against the misuse of victims' statements and identity disclosure. Therefore, additional affidavits were deemed unnecessary. [Paras 4-12].

Decision – Quashing of Special Judge’s Order – Directive for Issuance of Certified Copies – The Court directed the Special Judge to issue certified copies of the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC to the petitioner forthwith, reaffirming the accused’s right to these documents under Section 207 CrPC and Section 31 of the POCSO Act. [Para 14].

Rent Control – Eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act upheld – Challenge in High Court against eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller – Ownership and jural relationship of tenancy not disputed by tenants – Tenants failed to file written statement and cross-examine respondent – Court found no infirmity in the eviction order – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Eviction petition by landlord claiming ownership through registered sale deed and family settlement – Tenants' challenge based on ownership and availability of alternate accommodation – Court held family settlement valid despite being unregistered – Tenants' failure to provide evidence of alternate accommodation – Eviction order upheld. [Paras 2-9]

Evidence Evaluation – Tenants admitted pleadings and evidence of respondent unchallenged – Family settlement accepted as documentary record – Ownership through sale deed and family settlement deemed sufficient – Petitioners did not utilize opportunity to challenge evidence. [Paras 3, 6-8, 10]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – The eviction petition is upheld due to unchallenged evidence and pleadings, with no infirmity found in the Additional Rent Controller's order. [Paras 10-11]

Service Law – Trifurcation of Directorate General of Security (DGS) – Reorganization and Pay Parity – Petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order directing resolution of service condition disparities among ministerial staff post-trifurcation – Tribunal’s directive to devise a package and rectify lacunae affirmed – Relief limited to addressing pay grade disparity for Assistants.

Discrimination in Service Conditions – Held – Tribunal’s decision to remand matter to the Union of India for informed decision on grade pay of ₹4,600/- to Assistants in SSB upheld – Parity in pay with counterparts in ARC and SFF mandated – Petitioners to implement within three months – Tribunal’s broader directives for equitable treatment endorsed but specific prayer for 15% special allowance not pressed by respondents. [Paras 53-58]

Decision – Tribunal’s Order Upheld – Petition dismissed with direction to the Union of India to comply with Tribunal’s instructions regarding pay parity for Assistants in SSB – Applications for impleadment of additional parties dismissed as they were not parties before the Tribunal. [Paras 51-61]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Writ of Mandamus – Petitioners seeking police protection from petitioner No.1’s family and protection for attending marriage registration under Special Marriage Act – Held – Marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman under Special Marriage Act does not validate the marriage under personal laws, which consider such marriage irregular (fasid) – Petitioners are not entitled to police protection solely for the purpose of solemnizing such marriage – Reliefs sought for non-registration of criminal case denied – Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 1-17]

Marriage Laws – Inter-religious Marriage – Special Marriage Act – Legal Validity – Analysis – Marriage between a Muslim man and a Hindu woman without conversion remains an irregular (fasid) marriage under Muslim personal law – Such marriage cannot be validated by registration under Special Marriage Act – Personal law supersedes statutory provisions in validating such marriages – Consummation of fasid marriage does not create mutual inheritance rights. [Paras 12-14]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – No protection for inter-religious marriage without conversion under Special Marriage Act – Marriage remains irregular under personal law – Petition for police protection and preventing criminal proceedings against petitioner No.2 denied – Petition dismissed. [Paras 16-17]

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet – Petition for quashing FIR registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, and relevant sections of the Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Adhiniyam 2005 – FIR related to misuse of JCB machine for manual labor work under MGNREGA – Petitioner retired and no charge-sheet filed – Provisions of Rule 9(3) of Pension Rules, 1976 applied – Held, no judicial proceedings initiated within four years from the FIR registration – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed. [Paras 1-14]

Application of Rule 9(3) of Pension Rules, 1976 – Analysis – Held – Proceedings initiated after more than four years from FIR registration, post retirement – Violation of statutory provision – Judicial proceedings cannot be initiated after retirement for acts done beyond four years – Charge-sheet not filed, rendering judicial proceedings non-instituted. [Para 4, 10]

Facts and Irregularity – Not Embezzlement – Held – No mens rea or criminal intent – Work executed via JCB paid appropriately – No misappropriation for personal gain – FIR reflects payment and method – Departmental inquiry gave clean chit – Only procedural irregularity, not criminality. [Para 5, 8, 12-13]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Subsequent Proceedings – FIR and subsequent legal proceedings quashed based on Rule 9(3) of Pension Rules, absence of criminal intent, and clean chit from departmental inquiry – Petition allowed. [Para 14-15]

Bail – Section 439 Cr.P.C. – NDPS Act – Prolonged Custody and Delay in Trial – Bail applications by petitioners arrested with 23600 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride. Petitioners in custody since 27.11.2020, with trial progress minimal, citing only 3 out of 13 witnesses examined over 3.5 years. Held: Prolonged incarceration violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Supreme Court precedents support bail when custody exceeds a substantial part of the prescribed sentence and trial delay not attributable to petitioners. Bail granted. [Paras 1-13]

Criminal Law – Bail in NDPS Cases – Twin Conditions under Section 37 – Supreme Court in _Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha_ interpreted prolonged incarceration and delayed trials as grounds for bail despite Section 37 NDPS Act conditions. Constitutional courts retain bail discretion on Part III violations. [Paras 5, 8-10]

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioners Ranjeet Singh and Preetpal Singh granted bail due to prolonged custody and lack of trial progress. Petitioners must furnish personal bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each. Conditions include mandatory court appearance and non-misuse of bail. [Paras 12-14]

Murder and Dying Declaration – Acquittal Appeal – State challenged acquittal of accused for murder under IPC Section 302 – High Court upheld acquittal, citing lack of credible evidence and discrepancies in witness testimonies – Emphasized necessity of clear evidence to overturn acquittal [Paras 1-13].

Evidence and Witness Testimony – Prosecution's Failure – Court noted prosecution's failure to present consistent and corroborative evidence – Key witnesses turned hostile, and contradictions in complainant’s statements weakened the case – Dying declaration not considered due to lack of clarity on the deceased’s conscious state [Paras 6-7, 10].

Legal Principles and Standards – Presumption of Innocence – Court reinforced the principle that acquittal should not be overturned unless findings are perverse or manifestly erroneous – Referenced Supreme Court rulings underscoring cautious approach in reversing acquittals [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – Trial court's judgment upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in prosecution’s case [Paras 13].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – FIR registered against petitioner for alleged misuse of machinery instead of manual labor under MGNREGA scheme – Petitioner retired and no charge-sheet filed till date – High Court quashes FIR based on Rule 9(3) of Pension Rules, 1976, which prohibits judicial proceedings after four years from cause of action – Departmental enquiry cleared petitioner of wrongdoing – FIR found to constitute an irregularity, not illegality [Paras 1-14].

Pension Rules, 1976 – Rule 9(3) – Application to Retired Government Servant – Judicial proceedings not initiated within stipulated time frame – High Court interprets ‘judicial proceeding’ as commencing with filing of charge-sheet – Provisions of Pension Rules, 1976 applied to quash FIR registered after permissible period [Paras 4-11].

Departmental Enquiry – Clean Chit – Impact on Criminal Proceedings – Petitioner given clean chit in departmental enquiry – High Court considers this significant in quashing criminal proceedings [Paras 6, 8].

Decision: Petition allowed – FIR registered at Crime No. 116 of 2014 and subsequent proceedings quashed – Petition disposed of with no costs [Paras 14-15].

Motor Vehicle Accident – Fitness Certificate and Insurance Liability – The appellants, owner and driver of the offending vehicle, contested the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's decision to exonerate the insurance company from liability to pay compensation. The Court examined the legal requirements for a valid fitness certificate under Sections 39 and 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The absence of a fitness certificate on the date of the accident was deemed a fundamental breach of the insurance policy terms, justifying the insurance company's exoneration​​.

Legal Precedents – Applicability – The Court referred to previous judgments, including United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vinod and Others and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Asha and Others, confirming that the absence of a fitness certificate constitutes a breach of the insurance policy, thereby exonerating the insurer from liability. The principle established in these cases was applied, rejecting the appellants' reliance on contrary precedents​​.

Insurance Policy Conditions – Interpretation – It was argued that the insurance policy did not explicitly mention the necessity of a valid fitness certificate. The Court clarified that compliance with legal requirements, such as maintaining a valid fitness certificate, is implicitly necessary for the insurance policy to be effective. The absence of such compliance constitutes a valid ground for the insurer's exoneration​​.

Decision:

The appeals were dismissed. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to exonerate the insurance company from liability to pay compensation due to the absence of a valid fitness certificate for the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The principle of "pay and recover" applied by the Tribunal was affirmed​​.