Family Law – Paternity Dispute – DNA Test – Petition challenging Family Court’s order rejecting application for DNA test to determine paternity – Petitioner had earlier been acquitted in a rape case involving the mother of the minor child – Petitioner had entered into an agreement admitting paternity and agreeing to pay maintenance and compensation – Held: Petitioner estopped from challenging paternity due to previous acknowledgment and agreement – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Equitable Estoppel in Paternity Cases – Analysis – Held: Applying the doctrine of Paternity by Estoppel, based on equitable estoppel, once a man has held out a child as his own, he cannot later deny paternity – Precedent from Pennsylvania Supreme Court and reliance on Article 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child support the preservation of familial identity – Ensuring stability and security for the child considered paramount. [Para 9-10]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court upheld the Family Court’s decision, finding no merit in the petitioner’s challenge – The petitioner had acted in a manner accepting paternity, and his later denial was deemed impermissible – Public policy considerations regarding the child’s right to identity emphasized. [Para 11]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet – Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – FIR for molestation and threats – FIR No.0048 dated 25.06.2022 registered under Sections 452, 354 IPC, Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, later including Sections 354-A and 195-A IPC – Petitioner alleged to have threatened the victim’s uncle to force compromise – High Court evaluates nature and scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Held: Substantial prosecution evidence recorded, including inconsistent testimony of victim – High Court refrains from quashing FIR, emphasizing trial court’s role in evaluating evidence – Petition dismissed with costs for misleading information about previous petition – Directions for cost recovery provided. [Paras 1-13]

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Ambit – Powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Exercise of inherent jurisdiction not limited to cases where no trial has commenced – High Court retains power to quash FIR even when substantial prosecution evidence is recorded, but with caution – Each case to be evaluated on facts – Reliance on precedents establishing principles for exercise of inherent powers. [Paras 6-9]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Costs Imposed – Court finds no exceptional circumstances warranting interference – Petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000 as costs to be deposited with trial court and remitted to Punjab State Legal Services Authority – Detailed procedure for cost recovery outlined. [Paras 11-13]

Election Law – Writ Petition challenging election process – Dismissal on grounds of non-maintainability – Petitioner contested in the 2024 General Elections as an MLA candidate from the YSR Congress Party – Allegations of electoral offences and collusion between election staff and Telugu Desam Party personnel – Petitioner sought fresh polls in specific polling stations – Court found that the proper recourse for election disputes is through an election petition as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India and not through a writ petition under Article 226 – Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Jurisdiction and Maintainability – Article 329(b) – Interpretation – Election disputes to be adjudicated via election petition – High Courts barred from interfering in election processes while they are ongoing – Only after the conclusion of the election process can disputes be raised. [Paras 7-12]

Election Commission Directives – Legal standing – Directions issued by the Election Commission to Chief Electoral Officers – Binding but not equivalent to law – Violation of such directions does not invalidate election results – Remedies available through election petitions, not writ petitions. [Para 14-15]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Court held the petition as not maintainable under Article 329(b) – Petitioner advised to pursue election disputes through appropriate proceedings after the election process – No adjudication on the truthfulness of allegations – Petition dismissed without costs. [Paras 18-19]

Elections – Writ Petition for Re-scrutiny and Re-polling – Article 329(b) of the Constitution – Election Petition as Proper Remedy – Petitioner contested as MLA from 166-Chandragiri Assembly Constituency – Alleged voter suppression, ballot tampering, and violence on polling day – Complaints to election authorities ignored – Petitioner kept in separate room during scrutiny due to law and order issues – Supreme Court held that disputes related to elections should be addressed via election petitions and not writ petitions – Writ petition dismissed for lack of maintainability. [Paras 2-18]

Constitutional Law – Article 329(b) – Bar on Court Interference – Election matters to be resolved through election petitions – Interference by courts during election process is barred – Courts to avoid interrupting the electoral process – Held that grievances related to electoral offenses should be pursued through appropriate election petitions post-election. [Paras 7-10, 12-16]

Electoral Malpractice Allegations – Scrutiny of Form 17A – Election Petition – Petitioner’s absence during scrutiny due to separate room arrangement for safety – Authorities conducted random scrutiny and found no irregularities – Memo No.18/CEO-Peshi/2024-2 issued – Petitioner’s remedy lies in filing an election petition, not a writ petition. [Paras 2, 4, 17]

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – High Court dismisses the writ petition citing the constitutional bar under Article 329(b) – Petitioner advised to pursue election petition for redressal of grievances – Court does not examine the veracity of electoral offense allegations. [Paras 18-19]

Will – Proof and Validity – The petitioner sought to have his name mutated in the revenue records based on a Will executed by Phagulal Patel in favor of Dharmendra Sonkar. The Court emphasized that for a Will to be acted upon, it must be duly proved in accordance with the law. The petitioner failed to provide evidence proving the genuineness and validity of the Will. The Court highlighted the necessity of proving the Will through a civil court declaration before mutation can be done​​.

Mutation – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – The Court reiterated that revenue authorities do not have the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of a Will. The mutation of names based on a Will can only be done if the Will is duly proved in a competent civil court. The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments underscoring that mutation entries do not confer title and are only relevant for fiscal purposes​​.

Hindu Succession Act – Class II Heirs – The Court noted that under the Hindu Succession Act, the petitioner, being a nephew, falls under Class-II heirs and does not automatically inherit the property of his uncle unless explicitly mentioned in a valid Will. The absence of a legal declaration of the Will further negated the petitioner's claim​​.

Decision - The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner must first seek a declaration from a civil court regarding the validity of the Will before any mutation in the revenue records can be considered. The revenue authorities were deemed not competent to mutate names based on an unproved Will​​.

Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Writ Petition under Article 226 – Petition challenging unauthorized construction of a road on private land - Article 300-A and human rights considerations - State cannot dispossess a citizen of property without legal sanction and compensation - The State's claim of adverse possession against a private individual is untenable - Held, construction on private land without acquisition violates constitutional rights. [Paras 1-36]

State's Liability and Officer's Responsibility - Executive Engineer's failure to comply with interim court orders – Interim orders required halting construction on private land - Admitted non-compliance indicates a hostile attitude towards legal processes and citizens' rights - Held, mesne profits for unauthorized use of land to be recovered from the officer’s salary - Officer directed to show cause for contempt of court. [Paras 7-36, 40-41]

Decision - Petition Allowed - Respondents directed to immediately cease road construction on petitioner’s land, dismantle any existing construction, and compensate petitioner for unauthorized use - Mesne profits to be deducted from salary of responsible officer - Cost imposed on the officer for non-compliance with interim orders. [Paras 31-41]

Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentence - Criminal appeal against conviction for dowry death under Section 304B IPC and cruelty under Section 498A IPC - Appellant convicted by Trial Court - Sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304B and 2 years under Section 498A, with a fine and default imprisonment - Appeal challenges validity of conviction and sufficiency of evidence - High Court examines evidence, procedural delays, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies - Acquittal of co-accused not challenged by State - Held, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction and sentence set aside. [Paras 1-17]

Delay in FIR Registration - Examination - Incident on 06.07.1999, FIR registered on 12.07.1999 - Delay argued as a result of deliberation and false allegations - High Court finds initial DD entry and hospital intimation were timely - Delay in witness statements not sufficient to discredit prosecution case entirely. [Para 5]

Demand for Dowry - Analysis - Incidents of alleged dowry demands and harassment scrutinized - Testimonies of deceased's brothers inconsistent and partially hearsay - Lack of direct evidence from eye-witnesses and non-examination of key witnesses - Material contradictions noted in prosecution's case - Appellant's involvement in alleged demands not proven beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 6-14]

Decision - Acquittal - Appeal allowed - Conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC set aside - Appellant acquitted due to insufficient evidence - Bail bonds and surety bonds discharged. [Paras 16-19]

Criminal Law – Conviction under NDPS Act – Appeal against trial court's judgment convicting appellant for possession of 7 kg of 'charas' later identified as 'opium' – Alleged procedural lapses in compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52A NDPS Act – Safe custody of seized contraband not established – Discrepancies in forensic examination results – Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted due to non-compliance with mandatory legal requirements and reasonable doubt in prosecution's case. [Paras 1-50]

Criminal Law - Scope of Magistrate’s Powers Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Petition filed under Article 227 challenging the order of the Magistrate directing a preliminary investigation by police. The petitioner argued that the Magistrate misinterpreted the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) and Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (2014). The court held that the Magistrate has the authority to order a preliminary investigation in appropriate cases as elucidated in Priyanka Srivastava and Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri (2023). The petitioner's application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had not been finally disposed of by the Magistrate, rendering the current petition premature. The High Court directed the Magistrate to dispose of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the High Court, without being influenced by any observations made in this order. [Paras 1-16]

Judicial Vigilance - Filing Affidavit Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Emphasized the necessity for applicants to support their applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with affidavits as mandated in Priyanka Srivastava to deter frivolous filings. Magistrates are advised to verify the veracity of allegations in such applications to prevent misuse of judicial process. [Para 8]

Decision - Premature Petition - The petition challenging the Magistrate's order for preliminary investigation was dismissed as premature. The Magistrate's authority to direct preliminary investigations in appropriate cases was affirmed. The Magistrate was directed to decide the pending application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. expeditiously and on its own merits. [Paras 15-16]