Revision against Order Striking off Defence for Non-filing of Written Statement – Challenge against order dated 04.03.2024 striking off defendant-petitioners' defence in civil suit for failing to file written statement within prescribed time – Revision petition in High Court. [Para 2]

Contention and Counter-Contention – Petitioners seek opportunity to file written statement, willing to compensate with costs – Respondent contends sufficient opportunities already provided, defence rightly struck off for delay. [Para 3-4]

Relevant Legal Principles and Precedents – Referencing Desh Raj vs. Balkishan (D) through proposed LR Ms. Rohini [(2020) RCR (Civil) 807], distinguishing between timelines for filing written statement in commercial and non-commercial disputes – Unamended Order VIII Rule 1 CPC deemed directory, not mandatory for non-commercial suits. [Para 6]

Decision and Directions – High Court allows one more opportunity to file written statement by 28.03.2024, subject to Rs.30,000/- costs to respondent – Payment of costs as condition precedent for filing written statement – Counsel for defendant-petitioners advised against unnecessary adjournments. [Para 7]

Disposition – Petition disposed of with directions for filing written statement and payment of costs – Pending applications, if any, also disposed of. [Para 8]

Quashing of Proclamation as Proclaimed Person – Challenging the order declaring petitioner as proclaimed person in FIR No.79/2014 under Sections 325, 323, 34 IPC – Allegation of incorrect calculation of mandatory 30 days period under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Proclamation and declaration as proclaimed person quashed due to non-compliance with mandatory requirements of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. [Paras 1-9]

Computation of Period for Proclamation – Incorrect Calculation – The Court finds procedural error in computing the 30-day period as required under Section 82 Cr.P.C. for the proclamation – Period calculated from the date of ordering the fixing of proclamation, not from the date of its actual effect – Declares the proclamation order legally unsustainable. [Paras 4-5, 8]

Mandatory Requirements for Proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Non-compliance – Judgment highlights non-fulfillment of mandatory procedural requirements for proclaiming an individual as a proclaimed person – Emphasizes on strict adherence to the provisions of Section 82(1) and 82(2) Cr.P.C. – Failure in adhering to the procedures renders the proclamation and subsequent proceedings null and void. [Paras 6, 7, 9]

Decision – Quashing of Proclamation Order – High Court sets aside the order dated 26.08.2016, declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person, on grounds of material procedural irregularities and incorrect computation of the mandatory 30-day period as stipulated in Section 82 Cr.P.C. [Para 8-9]

Criminal Procedure – Allegations of Perjury and False Evidence  - Application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. – The petitioners challenged the order remitting the matter to the trial court for further inquiry into allegations of perjury under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. The contention revolves around the false implication of respondents No. 2 and 3 in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the petitioners. [Para 1, 3, 5-6]

Scope of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. – Discussed – Emphasized that the invocation of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. requires a deliberate and conscious act of perjury with reasonable probability of conviction. It is not meant for vindication of private grievances but to uphold the administration of justice. [Para 17, 19]

Judicial Prudence in Perjury Prosecution – Observed – Courts should sanction prosecution for perjury in cases where false evidence appears deliberate and with a likelihood of conviction. Mere inaccuracy in statements, which may be innocent or immaterial, should not attract prosecution under Section 340. [Para 17, 18, 21]

Findings on the Application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. – Held – On the basis of available records and arguments, found no deliberate perjury or intention to commit forgery by the petitioners. The alleged inaccuracies did not demonstrate a deliberate attempt to mislead the court or affect the administration of justice. Thus, initiation of prosecution under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. not expedient in the interest of justice. [Para 19-21]

Decision – Set Aside Order for Further Inquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. – The impugned order remitting the matter to the trial court for further inquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. set aside, finding it lacking in legality and failing to establish the expediency or necessity in the interest of justice. The court directed to expedite the conclusion of the complaint pending for 12 years. [Para 23-24]

Appeal in Motor Accident Claim – Rejection by Tribunal based on procedural grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties (mother of deceased) – Fatal accident caused by negligent driving of respondent No. 1, Raj Kamal, leading to death of Angesh Kumar – Initial claim for compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs by widow and children [Paras 1, 2, 4].

Eyewitness Testimony and Police Investigation – Eyewitness account by Amarpal (PW-4) corroborated by FIR and charge framing under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC against Raj Kamal for causing the accident by negligent driving [Paras 7, 8].

Legal Error in Tribunal's Decision – Tribunal's dismissal based solely on non-joinder of mother of deceased, disregarding that claimants included widow and minor children, recognized as legal representatives under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Tribunal misapplied procedural rigor suited to civil trials, not compensatory claims under Motor Vehicle statutes [Paras 9, 12-13].

Judicial Precedents on Non-Joinder of Parties – Reference to judicial opinions highlighting that non-joinder of all legal representatives should not invalidate a compensation claim; flexibility allowed for amending claim to include omitted legal representatives [Paras 14, 15].

Calculation of Compensation and Award – Based on principles laid out in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [2017] and other relevant precedents; total compensation recalculated at Rs. 5,82,240/- with provisions for future prospects, personal expenses, and conventional damages; interest at 9% per annum awarded from the date of claim till realization [Paras 17-18, 19].

Directions to Insurance Company – To deposit the awarded amount with interest within two months; distribution specified among appellants [Para 20].

Criminal Revision – Discharge Application – Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – addressed the application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), seeking quashing of the order and proceedings in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. [Para 2, 12]

Factual Background – The applicant, facing proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act, sought to quash the summoning order and subsequent proceedings, citing issues including a pre-mature complaint and the nature of the cheque involved. [Para 3]

Legal Arguments – The applicant’s counsel argued the maintainability of the discharge application, citing provisos under Sections 143 and 262 Cr.P.C., and referenced several Supreme Court judgments to support the case. The contention centered on the applicability of summons and warrant case procedures in N.I. Act proceedings. [Para 4-6]

State’s Response – Opposing the application, the learned A.G.A contended that the discharge application under N.I. Act is not maintainable without specific conversion from summary to warrant trial as per Section 259 Cr.P.C., which was not ordered in this case. [Para 7]

Court’s Analysis and Decision – After considering submissions and relevant legal precedents, the court found that unless a specific conversion is ordered in N.I. Act proceedings, the procedures for summons or warrant cases do not strictly apply. The court held that the discharge application was not maintainable and thus dismissed the application. However, it allowed the applicant to raise all arguments during the trial and provided directions regarding the applicant’s bail application. [Para 8-15]

Directions for Bail Application – The court directed that if the applicant applies for bail within 15 days, it shall be considered per the law established in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation (2021). [Para 15]

Maintenance Awarded by Family Court – Challenged by Husband – Family Court ordered husband to pay Rs. 40,000/- monthly for wife and daughter maintenance – Husband’s revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. claiming inability to pay and contesting wife’s ability to earn – [Para 1, 2, 4]

Assessment of Maintenance – Husband’s Income and Wife’s Earning Capacity – Contention of underreported income by husband and wife’s potential to earn – Court examined factors including status, income, property, and liabilities of parties for maintenance determination – [Para 9-11, 13]

Evidence and Legal Principles – Husband’s duty under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to disclose income – Court relied on precedents for assessing underreported income and deciding maintenance, emphasizing holistic evidence assessment – [Para 11-13]

Decision – Revision Application Dismissed – High Court upheld Family Court’s maintenance order – No merit found in husband’s revision application under limited revisional jurisdiction – [Para 13]

Appeal Against Tribunal's Award – Appeal filed by ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance against award dated 22.7.2009 by Third Additional Judge to First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 50/2009 – Challenge to compensation amount awarded for death in a road accident. [Para 1]

Factual Background – Respondents/claimants sought compensation for the death of Sonu @ Shankar Pratap Singh Jadoun in an accident involving a loading auto – Vehicle's driver and owner (Respondents No. 3 and 4) proceeded ex-parte. [Paras 2-3]

Insurance Company's Denial of Liability – Appellant (Insurance Company) denied liability citing breach of policy terms – Offending vehicle allegedly plied in violation of policy conditions. [Para 4]

Tribunal's Decision – Claims Tribunal partly allowed the claim, granting Rs. 1,96,912/- with 7% interest per annum – Directed driver, owner of the vehicle, and insurance company to pay jointly and severely. [Para 5]

Appellant's Arguments – Insurance company contested tribunal's decision, arguing breach of driving license terms and incorrect dependency calculation, as the deceased was unmarried. [Para 6]

Respondents/Claimants' Counter-Arguments – Claimed inadequate compensation, overlooked evidence on the deceased's income, and sought additional compensation for "pain and suffering" and "future prospects". [Para 7]

Judicial Analysis and Rulings:

License Validity Ruling – Apex Court precedent (Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Company Limited) upholds validity of LMV license for driving transport vehicle – Tribunal's finding on driver's valid license affirmed. [Para 8-9]

Dependency Calculation – Deceased being unmarried, dependency calculated at 1/2 as per Sarla Verma Vs. DTC precedent. [Para 10]

Income Estimation – Tribunal's estimation of deceased's annual income as Rs.15,000/- upheld due to lack of documentary evidence. [Para 11]

Compensation Calculation – Calculation includes Rs. 27412/- for medical expenses, 40% for future prospects, Multiplier of 18, and Rs.70,000/- in other heads – Total compensation enhanced to Rs.2,86,412/-. [Paras 12-13]

Decision – Award to respondents/claimants enhanced from Rs.1,96,912/- to Rs.2,86,412/- – Enhanced amount, with interest, to be paid by insurance company – Appeal allowed to this extent. [Para 14]

Court Fee Adjustment – Direction to claimants to deposit the difference in court fee, if applicable. [Para 15]

Criminal Conspiracy and Murder - Conviction for Criminal Conspiracy under Section 120-B and Murder under Section 302 and 302/34 of IPC - Incident involving the murder of Ahsan through shooting after a criminal conspiracy - Accused Kammu @ Kamlesh, Sheju Mewati @ Shahjad Kha, Ansar, Rijwan @ Tinu, and Jafar convicted for their respective roles in the conspiracy and the murder. [Paras 1, 2, 22, 25]

Eye Witness Testimony and Investigation - Key witness Naushad (PW-2)’s testimony established the presence of accused at the scene and their participation in the crime - Independent witness turned hostile, but other evidence supported prosecution's case - Statements of Police Inspector R.D. Mishra (PW-15) and B.L. Charan (PW-27) corroborated the prosecution's case. [Paras 11-13, 17, 20, 21]

Medical Evidence - Postmortem report by Dr. D.K. Sharma (PW-8) confirmed the death of Ahsan was homicidal in nature due to a gunshot wound - The court found no reason to doubt the autopsy report. [Paras 7-9]

Challenges to Conviction - Appellants challenged the trial court’s judgment, citing errors in evaluating evidence and witnesses, contradictions in statements, and wrongful rejection of a Section 311 Cr.P.C application - High Court found these contentions unmeritorious, holding the trial court's judgment as based on credible evidence. [Paras 4, 14-19, 24, 25]

Confirmation of Conviction and Sentence - High Court affirmed the trial court's decision - Convictions and sentences of life imprisonment for all appellants upheld - Directed accused/appellants on bail to surrender within 15 days to serve remaining sentence. [Paras 25-27]

Land Acquisition and Railway Employment Policy – Petitioners claim employment as a right following land acquisition by Railways – Question of policy application in granting jobs for land acquired for railway projects – Monetary compensation deemed primary, employment secondary and conditional – Review of Railway employment policy implications. [Paras 1, 2, 4, 8, 16-17]

Eligibility and Policy Conditions – Jobs post-acquisition offered only under specific conditions – Must fulfil educational qualifications, recruitment criteria, and timing constraints (within two years or first recruitment post-acquisition) – Equal opportunity principles under Article 14 stressed, barring direct appointments. [Para 2]

Policy Differentials and Case Analysis – Variations in Railway employment policies across projects – North side of Ganga Bridge with job provision stipulation, others without – Ineligibility and delay as grounds for rejecting applications – Focus on policy application per individual case, not broadly. [Paras 3, 11, 18-22]

Judicial Precedents and Policy Interpretation – Reference to several Supreme Court judgments including Umesh Kumar Nagpal, Shankar Prasad Deep, and Anil Kumar – Emphasis on consistent policy application, meeting eligibility, and avoiding delay – Compassionate appointment principles extended to land acquisition cases. [Paras 5, 9-10, 13-15]

Judgement and Relief – Appeals allowed, setting aside the Single Judge's orders – Petitioners not qualifying under employment policy for land losers – Directive for individual case analysis and application of current policies – No uniform relief for all appellants, based on specific land acquisition scenarios. [Paras 18-23]