Judicial Procedure - Compliance with statutory requirements for declaring an individual as a "proclaimed person" or "proclaimed offender" - Importance of thorough documentation and adherence to procedural guidelines - Quashing of FIR and all consequential proceedings due to lack of compliance with statutory requirements. [Para 13-15]

Guidelines for Issuance of Proclamation - Deliberation on previous efforts to secure the individual's presence - Requirements for publication of proclamation, including public reading, affixation at the individual's residence, and court premises - Period of not less than thirty days between publication and appearance date - Publication in a daily newspaper if deemed necessary - Declaration as "proclaimed person" or "proclaimed offender" based on the nature of the offense - Exercise of discretion in invoking criminal liability under Section 174A of IPC, considering various factors - Formal written complaint for initiating criminal proceedings. [Para 19]

Guidelines for Issuance of Proclamation:

• Deliberation on previous efforts to secure the individual's presence

• Requirements for publication of proclamation, including public reading, affixation at the individual's residence, and court premises

• Period of not less than thirty days between publication and appearance date

• Publication in a daily newspaper if deemed necessary

• Declaration as "proclaimed person" or "proclaimed offender" based on the nature of the offense

• Exercise of discretion in invoking criminal liability under Section 174A of IPC, considering various factors

• Formal written complaint for initiating criminal proceedings. [Para 19]

Right to Information (RTI) – Denial of RTI application under Sec.8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 – Petitioner, a lecturer, seeks information about service particulars of certain individuals for redressal of grievances in service-related matters – Petitioner contends error in construing Sec.8(1)(j) – Court finds petitioner not a stranger to the institution and entitled to service particulars for addressing grievances – Reliance on Girish Ramchandra Deshpande case denied, as it had a different fact matrix – Court holds that decisions are authorities for specific facts, not universally logical propositions – Petitioner justified in needing service particulars for availing benefits of government order – Impugned order quashed, and respondent directed to furnish information within three weeks, with penalties for delay. [Para 1-5]

Civil Services Examination – Challenge to CSAT Paper-II – Petitioners challenging questions in CSAT Paper-II as being out of syllabus – Petitioners contending that questions were of Class XI & XII level, contrary to syllabus prescribed – Tribunal dismissing Original Application – Tribunal acknowledging UPSC’s unblemished reputation in conducting examinations – Tribunal recognizing limitations of its jurisdiction to question academic experts’ decision on question paper – Tribunal rejecting argument that questions being of higher level should intimidate candidates for highest Civil Services – Tribunal declining to interfere with examination process of magnitude unless statutory violations or blatant miscarriage of justice shown – Tribunal emphasizing that decision on question paper not amenable to judicial review – Tribunal affirming UPSC’s transparent, fair, and objective conduct of examination – Tribunal holding that panel of academic experts’ decision on question paper not for judicial review unless manifestly arbitrary, malafide, or illegal – Petition dismissed. [Para 1-13]

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Permission to file a fresh suit in a decree – The trial court granted permission to file another suit in a decree, allowing for a fresh suit on the same cause of action. However, this practice is inconsistent with the principles of res judicata and the Code of Civil Procedure, as a decree should conclusively determine the rights of the parties. The power to grant liberty for a fresh suit can only be exercised under Order XXIII Rule 1 and 2 CPC when an application is submitted seeking permission to withdraw the suit. Such power cannot be extended while drawing a decree in a suit. The third suit based on the liberty granted in the decree is not sustainable and is hit by Section 11 CPC and the doctrine of constructive res judicata. [Para 2-4]

Binding Precedent – Disregard of established legal position – The trial court dismissed an application challenging the maintainability of a third suit without adhering to the legal position settled by the High Court, as presented in the case of Rosamma Stella Florence v. Lazar Nadar [2017 (4) KHC 38]. This disregard for established legal principles and failure to provide a valid reason for deviation cannot be sustained and is against the principle of binding precedent. The impugned order is set aside. [Para 3]

Remand for Settlement – Possibility of settlement explored – The petitioner’s counsel requested a remand to explore the possibility of settlement in the matter. The case is remanded back to the trial court for this purpose, and the parties are to appear before the trial court on 25/09/2023. If no settlement is reached within two weeks from that date, the application challenging the suit’s maintainability will be allowed, and the suit will be dismissed. [Para 4]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal of Respondents – Appellant Tek Chand under Section 372 of the CrPC challenges the acquittal of respondents Ashok, Shobha Ram, Yogesh, Rakesh, and Rukamesh for offenses under Sections 147, 148, 302, 452 & 506 IPC. The appellant contends that the acquittal was improperly granted, with no representative present for the appellant during hearings. [Para 1, 2, 20]

Prosecution Case – Indiscriminate Firing Leading to Murders – Tek Chand and others were sitting when accused, armed with rifles and revolvers, arrived in two cars. Accused fired indiscriminately, resulting in the death of three individuals. Tek Chand filed an FIR based on the incident. [Para 3, 4]

Investigation and Arrest – Charge Sheet Filed, Accused Abscond – Accused Ashok absconded during the trial, and the case was transferred to CBCID for further investigation. All accused were formally arrested in 2008 for this case. [Para 5, 6]

Evidence – Eyewitnesses and Alibi – The prosecution based its case mainly on the testimony of two eye-witnesses, Tek Chand (PW-1) and Inderjeet Singh (PW-5). Defence produced evidence showing that accused Ashok, Shobha Ram, and Yogesh were in jail during the time of the incident, establishing an alibi. [Para 7-14]

Credibility of Witnesses – Inconsistencies and Omissions – No medical evidence presented for injuries sustained by Kiran. Other potential eye witnesses were not examined. The learned Additional Sessions Judge noted these gaps while giving the benefit of doubt to the accused. [Para 15-17]

State's Leave to Appeal – Questioning Acquittal – The State has also sought leave to appeal against the acquittal, alleging that the Trial Court did not properly appreciate the evidence at hand. [Para 18-21]

Decision – Appeal Unrepresented, Alibi Accepted – In the absence of any representative for the appellant and due to the compelling nature of the alibi presented by the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted the benefit of doubt to the accused, resulting in their acquittal. [Para 17, 21]

Examination Conduct – Cancellation of Candidature – Damage to OMR Sheet – Held: Petitioner's candidature for the post of Hindi Lecturer was rightfully cancelled due to damage caused to the OMR sheet by scratching an answer, despite having scored more marks than the last selected candidate. The decision was in line with instructions issued to maintain the integrity of the examination process and prevent malpractice. [Paras 1-10]

Definition and Implications of ‘Damage’ – Instruction Compliance – Held: The court rejected the argument that the literal dictionary definition of 'damage' should be applied. Instead, it emphasized the administrative need to prevent any form of cheating or tampering, supporting the Commission's broader interpretation of 'damage'. Petitioner's evaluation despite the damage did not entitle him to appointment. [Para 9]

Decision – Upholding Cancellation – The court upheld the Commission's decision to cancel the petitioner's candidature, finding no violation of principles of natural justice or arbitrariness. The petition is dismissed. [Para 10]

Revision Under Article 227 – Review of Family Court Order – Petition to challenge the Family Court's refusal to order medical examination to assess respondent’s potency concerning consummation of marriage. The revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [Para 1]

Representation and Legal Counsel – The petitioner and the respondent were represented by their respective learned counsel. Arguments were heard from both sides. [Para 2]

Factual Background – Petitioner seeks annulment of marriage alleging non-consummation due to respondent's impotency. Also seeks damages/compensation of Rs. 1 crore, return of dowry, and other costs. Respondent denies the existence of the marriage and alleges blackmail. [Para 3-6]

Jurisdictional Issues – The trial court dismissed the petition after concluding that the petitioner had failed to prove the marriage. Raised questions regarding the timing of the petition for medical examination. [Para 7]

Legal Arguments – Petitioner argues that medical examination is within the jurisdiction of the trial court and is essential for determining the truth. Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in Sharda v. Dharmpal. Respondent argues against the relevance of medical examination when marriage itself is denied. [Para 9-10]

Role of Expert Opinion – Petitioner needs to establish not only the existence of the marriage but also grounds for the primary relief sought. Court discusses that evidence can be adduced during the inquiry stage and is subject to appreciation after the trial is concluded. [Para 11]

Constitutional and Legal Precedence – The court cites Supreme Court decision in Sharda v. Dharmpal, asserting that matrimonial courts have the power to order medical tests, and doing so does not violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. [Para 12-13]

Decision – Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the lower court's order. The trial court is directed to proceed with the medical examination of the respondent to assess the potency issue. [Para 14]

Civil Writ Petition – Compensation for Land Acquisition – Land utilized for road construction – Petitioner approached Court seeking compensation for land used for road construction – Respondents argued implied consent – Hon’ble High Court examined the facts and legal precedents – Rejected the delay and laches argument – Cited Vidya Devi and Sukh Dutt Ratra judgments – Upheld the petitioner’s right to compensation – Referred to State of Himachal Pradesh v. Umed Ram Sharma – Emphasized the importance of access to roads in hilly areas – Ruled that right to property is a constitutional and human right – Directed respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings and award just compensation – Hoped for expeditious resolution. [Para 12-22]

Criminal Appeal – Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation – Appellant’s appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Appellant, The New India Assurance Company, challenges the award of compensation granted to respondent No. 1, Shakuntla Devi – Liability of the appellant to pay compensation disputed – Main contention revolves around whether the petitioner, being the occupant of the vehicle, falls within the definition of ‘third party’ as per Section 145 of the Motor Vehicles Act – Issue of whether the insurance policy covers the petitioner as a gratuitous passenger – Rival contentions and case law discussed. [Para 7-23]

Conclusion – The Court examines the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, various decisions, and insurance policies – It holds that an “Act Policy” and a “Comprehensive/Package Policy” stand on different footings – In this case, the Court concludes that the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car is covered under a “Comprehensive/Package Policy” – The Insurance Company’s contention that the policy does not cover the petitioner’s claim as a gratuitous passenger is rejected – The decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is upheld, and the appellant’s appeal is dismissed. [Para 26]