Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – High Court exercises its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 42/2015 – Dispute between parties found to be civil in nature – Petitioner alleged to have illegally occupied property despite expired license agreement – Court held no ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust established – Criminal proceedings deemed abuse of process of law [Paras 1-22].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Civil disputes being converted into criminal cases – Supreme Court guidelines discourage using criminal prosecution to settle civil disputes – Court quashes FIR based on predominant civil nature of dispute and concurrent civil suits pending – Emphasis on distinguishing civil remedies from criminal prosecution [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Quashing of FIR – Held – FIR No. 42/2015 quashed as it constituted an abuse of legal process – The dispute, primarily civil in nature, is being addressed in civil courts – Criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil matters – Observations made to have no bearing on ongoing civil suits [Para 21].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appeal against the conviction for the murder of Nem Singh – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Recovery of axe and blood-stained clothes from appellant’s house deemed insufficient as primary evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Conviction also questioned due to lack of clear motive and chain of evidence [Paras 1-48].
Circumstantial Evidence – Requirements for Conviction – Emphasis on the need for a complete chain of evidence excluding any hypothesis of innocence – Court held that mere suspicion cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt – The importance of motive in circumstantial cases reaffirmed [Paras 30-31].
Recovery Evidence – Admissibility and Relevance – Critique of the lower court’s reliance on recovery of weapons and clothes under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Absence of proper procedural adherence for disclosure statements – Court noted that conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act cannot solely ground a conviction [Paras 32-44].
Abscondence of Accused – Not sufficient for Conviction – Court held that mere abscondence cannot lead to a firm conclusion of guilt, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence to substantiate charges [Paras 45-46].
Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted – High Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant’s bail bonds canceled and sureties discharged [Para 48].
 

Jurisdiction – Criminal Procedure – FIR Quashing – Petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the CJM, Jammu, to entertain a complaint leading to FIR No.79/2013 – Contended no part of the cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of Jammu – Court held CJM lacked jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CrPC as no event occurred within its territorial limits – Consequently, FIR and subsequent investigation by Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu quashed [Paras 1-13].

Criminal Law – Insurance Dispute – Nature of Claims – The grievance related to non-payment of insurance policy claims was deemed purely civil – Supreme Court precedents cited to emphasize such matters should not be given criminal coloration – No offence of cheating or forgery established against the petitioner-company – FIR quashed on merits [Paras 14-20].

Decision: Petition allowed – Held – CJM, Jammu, lacked jurisdiction to direct registration of FIR – FIR No.79/2013 and subsequent proceedings quashed as an abuse of process of law – Complaint deemed to be of civil nature without criminal offence [Paras 21-22].
 

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Appellants convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Mahboob Hasan – Trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment with fines – High Court finds the evidence insufficient to uphold the conviction – Emphasizes the necessity of a clear chain of circumstances leading to the only conclusion of the guilt of the accused [Paras 26-33].

Evidence Law – Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Prosecution’s reliance on the recovery of weapons at the appellants’ instance – High Court highlights lack of proper disclosure statements as per Section 27 requirements – Finds that mere recovery without proven disclosure statements does not suffice to establish guilt [Paras 28-39].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Appellants acquitted due to insufficient evidence – High Court underscores the need for concrete and admissible evidence in securing convictions, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence – Orders release of the appellants if not wanted in any other case [Paras 40-44].
 

Date of Birth – Dispute Resolution – Petitioner challenged the order directing completion of pension papers based on the erroneous date of birth – Contention that the correct date of birth is 22.04.1970, making the petitioner only 54 years old – Respondent’s standing order allows for such disputes to be resolved by the Labour Commissioner – Writ petition allowed – Petitioner given liberty to apply to the Labour Commissioner with proof of date of birth – Labour Commissioner to decide within three months after hearing both parties [Paras 2-6].

Retirement Age – Standing Orders – Provisions under Clause LL of the Standing Orders applicable – Emphasizes procedure for resolving disputes regarding date of birth for retirement purposes – Highlights the need for proper verification and consideration of reliable records including Provident Fund records, school certificates, municipal records, insurance policies, and other valid documents [Para 5].

Procedure – Application to Labour Commissioner – Petitioner instructed to file application with proof of date of birth to Labour Commissioner, who is to make a determination after providing opportunity for both parties to be heard – Emphasizes the obligation for timely disposal of such applications [Para 6].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Orders for petitioner to apply to Labour Commissioner – Labour Commissioner to decide within three months – Pending applications disposed of accordingly [Paras 6-7].
 

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – State appealed against the acquittal of the respondent in a murder case – Trial Court had acquitted the respondent on grounds of insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies – High Court examined the merits of the trial court’s findings and the prosecution's evidence – High Court upheld the acquittal, agreeing with the lower court’s assessment of unreliable witness statements and lack of concrete evidence linking the respondent to the crime [Paras 1-28]​​.

Evidentiary Standards – Witness Testimonies – High Court highlighted inconsistencies in witness statements and the prosecution's failure to provide a coherent narrative – Emphasized the necessity of reliable and corroborated testimonies in securing convictions – Court found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to overturn the trial court’s acquittal [Paras 10-20]​​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – High Court affirmed that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt [Para 28]​​.

Quashing of Proceedings – Criminal Intimidation – Insufficient Material – Petition to quash final report and proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Allegations under Sections 366, 354(D)(1), 354, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC – Threat by 2nd accused related to an earlier incident not linked to the primary crime – Threat insufficient to constitute criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC – Court finds lack of sufficient material against the 2nd accused – Quashes final report and proceedings against 2nd accused, directs trial to continue against 1st accused [Paras 1-9].

Ingredients of Criminal Intimidation – Definition and Application – Detailed examination of Section 503 IPC – Clarification that mere statement in the form of a threat does not automatically constitute criminal intimidation unless it meets specific legal criteria – Application of these principles to the facts of the case [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Petition allowed – Annexure A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.P.No.12/2022 quashed against the petitioner – Trial to proceed against 1st accused [Para 9].

Sanction for Prosecution – Validity – Evidence Act – Requirement of proving sanction for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act – Non-examination of sanctioning authority – Appellant’s challenge to the sanction order as being issued without considering relevant documents – Court’s satisfaction with sanctioning authority’s application of mind – Held, sanction for prosecution was valid and properly granted [Paras 6-9].

Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Evidence – Role of Accomplice – Evidence of PW6 (decoy witness) and PW2 (approver) corroborated by independent witness PW4 and trap laying officer PW7 – Conviction based on evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe corroborated by phenolphthalein test – Presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act invoked – Held, prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 10-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence by the trial court upheld.

Adverse Possession – Mandatory Injunction – Joint Possession – Plaintiffs purchased ½ share of property from a co-owner and sought mandatory injunction for defendants' eviction – Defendants claimed adverse possession and exchange of property – Courts found defendants to be licensees, not co-owners – Defendants not entitled to protection under Section 44 of Transfer of Property Act – Suit for mandatory injunction held proper without need for partition suit [Paras 2-14, 19-25, 32].

Transfer of Property Act – Co-Owners – Section 44 does not grant joint possession to non-family members acquiring property – Defendants residing as licensees, not as co-owners – Other co-owner's rights unaffected by decree in favor of plaintiffs [Paras 7-10, 12-14].

Partition Act – Right of Pre-emption – Section 4 of Partition Act not applicable as defendants not co-owners – Plaintiffs' suit for possession valid without partition claim – Absence of other co-owner in suit not fatal to plaintiffs' case [Paras 19-24].

Easements Act – Licenses – Section 59 states transferees not bound by prior licenses – Plaintiffs terminated license before suit – Defendants' possession not adverse [Paras 30-31].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Additional District Court, Palakkad upheld – Plaintiffs entitled to mandatory injunction directing defendants to vacate the property [Paras 33].