Family Law – Hindu Marriage Act – Dissolution of Marriage – Court examined whether a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act can be dissolved through a compromise in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court considered the legitimacy of a second marriage and its impact on family pension rights. [Para 3-5, 9-11]

Marriage Dissolution Procedure – held – emphasized that under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marriage can only be dissolved through a decree by a competent court. The court ruled that a compromise in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not constitute a legal dissolution of marriage. [Para 10-11]

Eligibility for Family Pension – discussed – explored the issue of entitlement to family pension following the death of a government employee. The court scrutinized claims based on a second marriage and the effect of a compromise in previous legal proceedings. [Para 3, 9, 13]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of the Single Judge. It was decided that the marriage between the deceased employee and the first wife was not legally dissolved, and the first wife's claim to family pension stands valid. [Para 12-13]

Implications of Section 125 Cr.P.C. – clarified – the court clarified the scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C., stating that it pertains to maintenance payment and does not empower courts to dissolve marriages. [Para 10]

Accident Details – Involvement of Trailer Truck and Maruti Car – Alleged absence of tail lamps and brake lights on trailer truck – Accident occurred at night, deceased driver of the car could not notice the trailer stopping – Contributory negligence issue [Para 6, 8]

Tribunal's Finding on Negligence – Tribunal found negligence on part of both drivers – Held 50% contributory negligence for each – High Court finds error, attributes sole negligence to trailer truck driver [Para 7, 8]

Issue of Valid Driving License – Appellant-Insurance Company claimed trailer truck driver lacked valid license – Tribunal did not accept this argument as Insurance Company failed to provide substantial evidence [Para 9, 10]

Compensation Assessment – Tribunal's award considered excessive under non-pecuniary head – High Court recalculates, reducing the amount – Details provided for recalculated compensation including loss of dependency, consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses [Para 11]

Order and Decision – Appeal partially allowed – Cross-Objection allowed – Enhanced compensation awarded to claimants with interest – Deduction of excess amount awarded by Tribunal – Directives for deposit and withdrawal of compensation [Para 12]

acquitted the appellants - reversing the trial court's conviction under Sections 498-A, 306,  34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellants were charged with cruelty and abetment to suicide concerning the death of Shobhabai. The key evidence Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide and Cruelty – Acquittal on Appeal – included two dying declarations and oral testimonies of family members and neighbors. [Para 1, 15-17, 22, 31-33]

Inconsistency in Dying Declarations – Found – inconsistencies in the two dying declarations of the deceased, leading to questions about their reliability. The first declaration did not mention physical abuse that was later claimed, while the second one introduced new allegations. These inconsistencies affected the credibility of the declarations as evidence. [Para 18-20, 21]

Testimonies of Family Members – Scrutinized – examined the testimonies of the sons and husband of the deceased. It found discrepancies and a lack of clear evidence linking the accused to any acts that could be construed as abetment to suicide. There was no consistent or sustained harassment or instigation by the appellants that led to the deceased's suicide. [Para 24-30]

Legal Position on Abetment and Cruelty – Reiterated – the legal requirements for charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. For abetment, there must be clear evidence of incitement, instigation, or aiding in the act of suicide. Similarly, for cruelty, there must be proof of conduct leading to grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health. The court found that the evidence presented did not meet these standards. [Para 13-14, 32-33]

Decision – Acquittal and Cancellation of Bail Bonds – Based on the scrutiny of evidence and legal principles, the court acquitted all appellants of the charges, cancelled their bail bonds, and ordered the refund of any fine amount deposited. [Para 33, Order]

Application for Quashing FIR and Proceedings – Involving Mega Grain Trading Pvt. Ltd. – FIR for offenses under Sections 406, 420, and 114 of IPC – Request to quash based on amicable settlement between parties. [Para 4, 5, 6, 11]

Amicable Settlement and Affidavit by Complainant – Parties reached a mutual settlement during the pendency of proceedings – Original complainant filed an affidavit agreeing to quash the proceedings. [Para 5]

Background of the Case – Petitioner No.1 is a private company, with Petitioner No.2 as a consultant, and Petitioner No.3 as a Director – Dispute arose from a deal involving caraway seeds, leading to an FIR when the goods turned out to be waste material – Subsequent settlement resolved the dispute. [Para 6]

Precedents on Criminal Proceedings and Breach of Contract – Citing Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Anr. – Emphasizing the difference between criminal prosecution for cheating and breach of contract. [Para 7]

Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Utilization in quashing FIRs – Reference to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – Guidelines for exercising inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or to secure justice. [Para 8, 9]

Judgment – Application allowed – Quashing FIR C.R. No.11205032231429 of 2023 and all consequential proceedings – Release of applicants from custody if not required in another case. [Para 11]

Motor Vehicle Accident Claim – United India Insurance Company Limited (Appellant/Insurer) against Luxman and others (Respondents/Claimants) – Accident resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant – Compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solan – Appeals by both the insurer and claimant for reassessment of the compensation amount [Paras 2-4].

Facts and Evidence – Claimant suffered injuries in a scooter accident involving an Innova car – Driver of Innova (Respondent No. 2) found negligent – Claimant, a supervisor, sought compensation for treatment costs, permanent disability, loss of income, pain, and suffering [Paras 4-5, 11-14].

Legal Principles on Compensation – Reference to Supreme Court judgments Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Gajender Yadav – Principles for assessing compensation in injury cases, including loss of future earnings due to permanent disability [Paras 18-20].

Determination of Compensation – Consideration of claimant's earnings, age, permanent disability (15% of the right lower limb), and future earning capacity – Awarded compensation for pain, suffering, loss of comfort, amenities, and mental agony [Paras 21-26].

Decision – Modification of the initial award by Tribunal – Increase in compensation under specific heads, maintaining other terms of the original award, including interest component – Appeals disposed of accordingly [Para 27].

Criminal Law – Conviction under IPC and POCSO Act – Appeal against Conviction – The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence for offenses under Section 366 of IPC and Section 9(m) r/w 10 of POCSO Act. The trial court had found the appellant guilty of kidnapping and committing sexual assault on a minor. [Para 1, 4]

Credibility of Child Witness – Assessment and Corroboration – The Court examined the reliability of the child victim's testimony, emphasizing the necessity for careful scrutiny and potential corroboration due to the risk of tutoring and influence on a child witness. Key Supreme Court judgments on the evaluation of child witness testimonies were considered. [Para 5.5, 12, 13]

Evidence and Witness Testimony – Analysis and Inconsistencies – The Court analyzed the discrepancies in witness testimonies and the lack of corroborative evidence. It highlighted inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, especially concerning the presence of the appellant at the crime scene and the improbable circumstances of the alleged offense during the COVID-19 lockdown. [Para 5.7, 9, 12, 14]

Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases – Need for Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – The Court reiterated the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in serious offenses involving child victims under the POCSO Act. [Para 8, 14]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellant – Given the lack of credible evidence, inconsistencies in testimonies, and failure of the prosecution to meet the required standard of proof, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, acquitting the appellant of all charges. However, the compensation awarded to the victim was upheld. [Para 15, 16]

Acquittal and Compensation – Despite acquittal, the Court upheld the compensation awarded to the victim, reflecting a nuanced approach towards victim rights in criminal proceedings. [Para 16]

Family Law and Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Revision of Maintenance Award – revision petition against an order of maintenance awarded under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., focusing on the allegation of the petitioner living in adultery and its effect on the entitlement to maintenance. [Para 1, 16-17, 20]

Adultery and Maintenance Entitlement – Examined – Held that mere allegations of adultery are insufficient for disentitlement to maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. The court noted that living in adultery requires a continuous course of conduct and not just isolated incidents. [Para 11-14, 16]

Evidence and Admissibility – Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 14 of the Family Courts Act  – admissibility of digital evidence, particularly photographs, in family law cases. While Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, allows for leniency in evidence admissibility, the court found the evidence in question insufficient to establish the respondent's continuous adulterous conduct. [Para 17-19, 20]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Upholding the lower court's decision, the High Court dismissed the revision petition for lack of merit and affirmed the maintenance award, finding no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the trial court’s decision. [Para 21-22]

Service Law - Constitutional Law – Equality and Non-Discrimination – Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India – The High Court examined the validity of the State's decision rejecting the petitioner's candidature for the post of Head Teacher based on her teaching experience in another State and as a guest teacher. The Court emphasized that appointments to public posts must comply with the equality and non-discrimination principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. [Para 8, 18]

Eligibility Criteria for Government Posts – Interpretation – held – The Court interpreted the eligibility criteria for the post of Head Teacher under the Punjab State Elementary Education (Teaching Cadre) Group C Service Rules, 2018. It ruled that experience gained in Central/State Government schools anywhere in India qualifies, and the statutory rules did not restrict the experience to regular appointments only. The Court held that administrative decisions could not override statutory rules regarding eligibility criteria. [Para 5-7, 10-15]

Appointment of Government Teachers – Ad hoc/Guest Teaching Experience – recognized – The Court acknowledged the equivalency of ad hoc, part-time, and guest teaching experiences to regular teaching experiences. The decision expanded the scope of eligible teaching experience for government teaching positions, emphasizing the duties and responsibilities over the nature of the appointment. [Para 11-15]

Judicial Review – Arbitrariness and Violation of Constitutional Rights – The Court found the respondent-State's action in rejecting the petitioner's candidature based on her experience as a guest teacher and from a different State to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court directed the appointment of the petitioner based on merit, subject to the position in the selection, granting her notional seniority and pay fixation. [Para 18-19]

Decision – Directive for Appointment and Notional Benefits – The petition was allowed, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Head Teacher based on her merit position. The petitioner was entitled to notional seniority and pay fixation but not actual monetary benefits. [Para 19]

Recall of Witnesses – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners sought to recall PW.1, PW.6, and PW.7 for cross-examination, arguing the need to cross-examine them together for a fair trial – The trial court dismissed the petition, citing unnecessary delay and harassment of witnesses – High Court upheld trial court’s decision, noting that the case had already been significantly delayed [Paras 1-5].

Trial Delay – Right to Fair Trial vs. Judicial Efficiency – Court acknowledged the petitioners’ right to a fair trial but emphasized that repeated adjournments and recall petitions should not be used to unduly delay proceedings – Highlighted Supreme Court guidelines and the necessity of timely justice [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Discretion – Managing Trial Proceedings – Trial court’s discretion in managing its proceedings, including the decision to recall witnesses, upheld – Emphasized that the accused cannot dictate the trial schedule and witnesses’ examination based on convenience [Paras 4-5].

Decision:

The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed, and the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.