Adverse Possession – Ownership Claim – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of suit land by adverse possession for over 12 years – Trial court held possession but dismissed suit as time-barred – First appellate court reversed, declaring plaintiffs owners by adverse possession – Regular second appeal dismissed by High Court, affirming adverse possession due to uninterrupted, hostile possession since 1969 [Paras 1-18].

Limitation – Cause of Action – Fresh suit filed after previous suit withdrawn with liberty – Fresh cause of action arose after 12 years from 1971, not time-barred [Paras 10-11].

Revenue Records – Analysis of entries – Plaintiffs' possession recorded without rent payment, indicating adverse possession – Revenue terms interpreted to support plaintiffs' claim [Paras 8-9].

Relief – Regular second appeal dismissed – First appellate court's judgment upheld – Plaintiffs declared owners by adverse possession [Para 18].

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Expeditious Trial - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction for expeditious conclusion of trial - Complaint filed in 2021 but trial not concluded - Emphasis on statutory mandate under Section 143(2) and 143(3) N.I. Act for day-to-day trial and conclusion within six months - Apex Court directions in Indian Bank Association v. Union of India (2014) and In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 N.I. Act (2021) for speedy disposal of cases reiterated - Court directs trial court to conclude trial within six months from receipt of order copy. [Paras 1-8]

Directions for Expeditious Disposal - Section 138 N.I. Act - Supreme Court Directions - Court reiterates necessity for expeditious trial and disposal of cases under Section 138 - Magistrates directed to follow procedures ensuring speedy trials as per guidelines from Supreme Court - Directions include day-to-day hearings, proper service of summons, and adherence to statutory timelines - Application disposed of with directions for trial court. [Paras 3-7]

Decision: The court directs the 5th Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 18, Basti, to conclude the trial of Complaint Case No. 23545 of 2021 expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, in accordance with Sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the N.I. Act, subject to no legal impediments. [Para 8]

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.

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].