Injunction Suit - Boundary Wall Dispute and Litigation Tactics – Petitioners challenged the trial court’s refusal to direct the respondent to restore a boundary wall to its original height post unauthorized alterations during a pending suit – The respondent initially secured an ex parte interim order allowing repairs but not height alteration, violated this by raising the wall height and then withdrew the suit strategically [Paras 2, 10-14, 23-24].

Misapplication of Procedural Rights – Respondent withdrew the suit without providing notice to the petitioners, exploiting the procedural lapse to avoid challenge on the unauthorized construction – Petitioners’ subsequent application for restoration dismissed by the trial court, raising issues of procedural fairness and judicial oversight [Paras 5, 13, 22-25].

Restoration and Restitution under CPC – Application of Section 144 CPC on the principle of restitution, ensuring no party benefits unjustly from the court’s processes – High Court criticized trial court’s failure to address the equity and factual matrix, leading to substantial miscarriage of justice [Paras 16-18, 25-26].

Supervisory Jurisdiction Exercised – High Court invoked supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, setting aside the trial court’s order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on restoration of status quo ante [Paras 26-28].

Decision: Impugned order set aside – Remanded for fresh consideration on restoration of status quo ante – Trial court directed to proceed expeditiously with the matter, ensuring fair hearing to both parties [Para 28].

Misconduct and Disciplinary Action – Petitioner faced charges of unauthorized absence, misbehaviour, and irregularities, leading to suspension and disciplinary action including barring of increments – Original application to KAT challenging the penalty imposed was dismissed. [Paras 2, 3]

Judicial Review of Tribunal's Order – Petitioner sought High Court intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution – Argued that KAT and respondents ignored previous orders (Annexures A12, A14) absolving him of certain charges, and that the penalty was harsh and procedurally flawed. [Paras 5, 7]

Respondents' Stance – Respondents countered that petitioner did not adhere to stipulated conditions in previous orders and failed to contest multiple other charges – Argued procedural correctness of enquiry and imposition of penalty. [Paras 3, 8]

High Court's Assessment – HC found no violation of natural justice as petitioner didn't participate in enquiry despite notices – Tribunal's decision viewed as just, and petitioner's charges uncontroverted – Penalty deemed proportionate considering the gravity of repeated misconduct. [Paras 12, 13]

Conclusion – HC refrained from interfering with Tribunal's order under Article 227 as it did not find any significant legal or procedural error justifying such intervention – OP (KAT) dismissed, no costs. [Para 13]

Quashing of FIR and Direction for CBI Investigation – Writ Petition – Allegations of Forgery and Trespass – Petitioner seeks direction to entrust investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – Petitioner alleges repeated threats and inducements by real estate group to widen road adjacent to his property – Suit filed by petitioner pending consideration before Court with interim injunction – Wife of petitioner files complaint alleging forgery and loss – FIRs registered but petitioner alleges improper investigation – Court examines final reports of related FIRs – Finds incomplete investigation and allegations against Investigating Officer – Directs fair investigation by District Crime Branch – Petition allowed accordingly. [Para 1-15]

Forgery Allegations and Trespass – Investigation – Allegations of forgery and trespass against real estate group and Panchayat Authorities – Complaints filed by petitioner and his wife – Alleged inclusion of petitioner's property in Panchayat's asset register without consent – Suit filed by petitioner with interim injunction against conversion of property into road – Allegations not properly probed, no forensic analysis of documents – Investigation deemed incomplete, further probe by independent agency ordered. [Para 13-14]

Direction for Investigation by District Crime Branch – Fair Probe – Final reports of related FIRs examined – Court finds deficiencies in investigation, including incomplete probe and allegations against Investigating Officer – Orders fair investigation by District Crime Branch into allegations against petitioner and related complaints – Directs immediate transfer of investigation from Edathala Police Station to District Crime Branch. [Para 15]

Conviction and Sentence Challenge – Appellant Thankappan convicted under Section 8(1) and (2) of Kerala Abkari Act for possessing 750 ml arrack – Sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000, with additional 3 months imprisonment in default of fine payment – [Para 2]

Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Trial court examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exhibits P1 to P7, Mos 1 and 2 – PWs 1 and 2 turned hostile, not corroborating prosecution's version – Key evidence from PW3, the Sub Inspector, lacked details on seal's nature used on contraband and sample bottles [Paras 3-4, 7-8]

Procedural Lapses in Evidence Handling – Critique on absence of seal impression in seizure mahazar (Exhibit P1), property list (Exhibit P5), and forwarding note (Exhibit P6) – Delay in property and sample submission to court, raising concerns about sample integrity and chain of custody [Paras 6, 9-11]

Precedent Reference – Citation of Sasidharan v. State of Kerala [2007(1) KLT 720] highlighting the necessity for tamper-proof dispatch and sample integrity for prosecution – Link evidence requirement to prove offence unmet by prosecution [Para 10]

Acquittal and Release – Due to failure in establishing tamper-proof collection and dispatch of sample, appellant/accused granted benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence by trial court set aside – Appellant acquitted and released, bail bond cancelled [Para 12]

Decision: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted and released; conviction and sentence set aside.

Acquittal - Charge under Section 395 of IPC – Conviction – Challenge to – Accusation of dacoity – Four appellants faced trial for committing dacoity in respect of cash, mobiles, and other belongings of the informant – Framing of charge without indication of participation of five or more persons – Essential ingredient of dacoity not satisfied – Charge not sustainable – Case records and informant’s testimony indicating participation of only four persons – Charge and conviction under Section 395 IPC set aside.

Identification of appellants – Test Identification Parade (T.I. Parade) – Legal sanctity – T.I. parade conducted by police and later by Magistrate – Non-examination of Magistrate who conducted the parade – Prosecution’s duty to establish legality of T.I. parade – Failure to examine Magistrate a severe blow to prosecution – Defence unable to challenge irregularities without Magistrate’s testimony – No material against two appellants except confessional statement – No T.I. parade conducted for these appellants – No identification of seized articles by informant in court – Recovery of articles cannot establish guilt – T.I. parade conducted after appellants were previously known to informant – Test Identification Parade of accused known to witnesses holds no value.

Decision – Acquittal of Appellants: Court set aside the trial court’s order of conviction due to insufficient evidence and procedural lapses in the T.I. Parade – All appellants acquitted under Section 395 IPC – Bail bonds of appellants discharged [Para 9].

Acquittal – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) – Criminal Appeal against Special Court, Bathinda's judgment convicting under Sections 21 and 22 NDPS Act – High Court sets aside conviction – Finds prosecution's case unconvincing and lacking substantial proof – Highlights flaws in prosecution’s presentation and handling of evidence – Noted discrepancies in recovery process and involvement of independent witness – Held, stringent punishment demands stricter proof – Accused acquitted of all charges. [Paras 9-20]

Recovery of Contraband – Analysis – Prosecution alleged recovery of Methamphetamine and Codeine from appellants – Independent witness negates prosecution’s claim of recovery in his presence – Doubts raised over the credibility of police's version and handling of evidence – High Court finds prosecution's story implausible, particularly with regard to two persons carrying a bag of minor weight jointly – Appellants acquitted due to lack of convincing evidence. [Paras 14, 17-18]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellants – High Court observes that prosecution failed to establish a convincing case beyond reasonable doubt – Noted discrepancies in recovery process and inconsistencies in testimonies – Emphasizes the need for stricter proof in cases involving stringent penalties – Conviction under Sections 21 and 22 of NDPS Act set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges. [Para 19-20]

Delay in filing written statement - Strike off of defence - Civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Petition filed by defendants seeking to set aside order striking off their defence for failure to file written statement within 90 days - Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.15,96,501/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. - Defendants alleged to have good family and business relations with plaintiff - Plaintiff issued cheque of Rs.1,25,000/- to defendants for expansion of their business - Defendants failed to file written statement within stipulated period, resulting in ex parte proceedings - Defendants sought setting aside of ex parte order, which was allowed - However, defendants again failed to file written statement within extended period, leading to striking off of their defence - Defendants challenged said order in revision petition - Held, provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC regarding filing of written statement are directory, not mandatory - Court possesses discretion to condone delay in filing written statement, particularly in non-commercial disputes - Ends of justice served by condoning delay subject to payment of costs - Defendants granted one more opportunity to file written statement - Revision petition allowed, impugned order set aside subject to payment of costs - Defendants directed to file written statement within specified time frame, failing which no further opportunity shall be granted - Plaintiff entitled to seek recalling of order if valid grounds presented - Petition disposed accordingly.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC – Trial Court dismissed application to reject plaint filed by children of the donor challenging gift deed executed by their father – High Court holds that once the donor had withdrawn his suit challenging the gift deed, his children could not subsequently challenge the same deed – High Court emphasizes that validity of gift deed rests between donor and donee – Rejection of application by Trial Court overturned – Plaint rejected. [Paras 1-10]

Gift Deed – Validity and Legal Challenge – Donor’s suit for cancellation of gift deed and subsequent withdrawal – Children of the donor cannot challenge gift deed after donor's withdrawal of suit – High Court underscores that acceptance of gift by donor and withdrawal of suit precludes further challenge by donor’s heirs – Trial Court’s order set aside, plaint rejected. [Paras 7-10]

Decision: Held: Revision petition allowed – Order of the Trial Court set aside – Plaint rejected. [Para 10]

Quashing of Proceedings – Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – The petition was filed to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the charges of kidnapping and under POCSO Act after the minor girl eloped and married the petitioner – Both the victim girl and her mother turned hostile during trial – The court considered the marriage, birth of a child, and the couple living together as factors for quashing – The court recognized the need to prevent further vulnerability and exploitation of the girl by quashing the case [Paras 1-4].

Hostile Witnesses – Victim and Defacto Complainant – The victim, now living with the accused as husband and wife, and her mother, both declared hostile – The court acknowledged their current situation and relationship dynamics as reasons to avoid further prosecution [Paras 1-2].

Marriage and Birth of Child – Consideration of Humanitarian Reasons – The court took into account the marriage and the birth of a child as significant humanitarian grounds for quashing the prosecution – Emphasized the importance of protecting the minor girl's welfare rather than enforcing strict legal provisions in this unique context [Paras 2-3].

POCSO Act – Silence on Post-Marriage Scenario – The court noted the absence of provisions in POCSO Act to address situations where the accused and victim are married and living as a family – Highlighted the need for judicial discretion in such cases to prevent further harm to the victim [Para 2].

Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Application to Quash Proceedings – The court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the interest of justice – Aimed at preventing further harm and ensuring the welfare of the minor girl now turned major and her family [Para 3].

Decision: The Criminal Original Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in Spl.S.C. No. 50 of 2022 on the file of the Mahila Court, Allikulam, Chennai, are quashed.