Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – The petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 386, 449, 326, 365, 506, 120B, and 34 of the IPC, contending that the allegations made in the complaint were fabricated and unsupported by material evidence. Upon review, the court found discrepancies between the allegations of assault and the medical records, which suggested a different version of events, i.e., that the complainant fell and sustained injuries without any mention of assault​.

Medical Evidence – Inconsistencies – The Court noted that the complainant’s account of the assault was not corroborated by the medical reports, as the history given to the doctors mentioned a fall rather than an attack. This discrepancy undermined the credibility of the complaint​.

Misuse of Legal Process – Bhajan Lal Principles – The court invoked the principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, highlighting that where allegations are inherently improbable or where the proceedings are manifestly initiated with mala fide intent, the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised to prevent abuse of legal process​.

Decision: The criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 503/2018 arising from Asansol (South) Police Station Case No. 88/2018 were quashed with respect to the petitioners. The Court ruled that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process and failed to secure the ends of justice​.

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Acquittal - Section 52A compliance – Whether the procedure for sampling under Section 52A was followed. Held, the samples were drawn on the spot without the presence of a Magistrate, which contravenes the NDPS Act. As per the Supreme Court's decisions in Mohanlal and Yusuf, samples must be drawn in the presence of a Magistrate, and the inventory must be certified by the Magistrate. Failure to comply invalidates the primary evidence – [Paras 15-17, 26].

Criminal Procedure – FIR Mention on Search Memos – Whether FIR number on documents before registration renders the prosecution's case doubtful. Held, the inclusion of FIR number in memos prepared prior to FIR registration casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case. This violates procedural fairness as established in Manjit Singh v. State – [Paras 20-26].

Constitutional Law – Presumption of Innocence – The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt when procedural lapses affect the integrity of the prosecution’s case – [Paras 34-38].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The judgment and conviction order dated 05 July 2011 passed by the Special Judge, Solan, was set aside. The appellant, Sachin Sharma, was acquitted of charges under Section 15(b) of the NDPS Act. The appellant was directed to furnish a bond under Section 437-A of CrPC to the satisfaction of the Trial Court – [Paras 44-47].

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 439 CrPC – Custody of two years and four months – The petitioner sought regular bail, charged with attempting to murder under Sections 324, 307, and 506 of the IPC. The prosecution claimed the petitioner stabbed the victim with a knife during a dispute. Despite over two years of incarceration, no prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the trial was delayed. Charges were framed in August 2022, but the trial showed no progress – [Paras 1-5].

Criminal Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21. Despite the seriousness of the charges, the prolonged delay and lack of trial progress were key factors in the court’s decision to grant bail. The court emphasized that pre-conviction detention should be as brief as possible – [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Precedent – Apex Court Rulings on Bail – Relying on Dataram v. State of U.P., the court reiterated that bail is a general rule and incarceration an exception. The court also referred to Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar and Baljinder Singh alias Rock v. State of Punjab to stress the importance of protecting personal liberty when the trial is significantly delayed – [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Bail Granted – The petition for regular bail was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, subject to standard bail and surety conditions. The court clarified that this decision should not be taken as an opinion on the merits of the case – [Paras 5-7].

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Appeal against Conviction – Reliability of Child Witnesses – Appellant convicted for the murder of his mother-in-law and grievously injuring his wife. The trial court convicted based on the testimony of two child witnesses (sons of the appellant) and corroborative forensic evidence – Held, the testimony of child witnesses can be relied upon when consistent and corroborated by other evidence – Child witness testimony is valid under close scrutiny – Appellant’s argument that the child witnesses were tutored was rejected – No grounds to interfere with the trial court's findings – [Paras 19-22, 27].

Dying Declaration – Infirmities in Signature – Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act – The deceased’s dying declaration did not have a signature on the final narration, though her signature was present during preliminary questioning – Held, the court accepted that the absence of signature raises suspicion but found that other corroborative evidence sufficiently proved the appellant’s guilt – Dying declaration not solely relied upon to convict the accused – [Paras 15-16].

Forensic Evidence – Corroboration of Bloodstains – Section 45 of the Evidence Act – The forensic report matched the bloodstains on the accused’s clothes with those found on the deceased’s saree, confirming his presence at the crime scene – Evidence corroborated with the testimonies of child witnesses and other prosecution witnesses – [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC confirmed by the High Court.

Tender Process – Validity – Technical Bid Requirements – Petitioners challenged the tender process, alleging that the successful L-1 consortium did not meet the required stockholding conditions and that there was no physical inspection of stock as mandated under the e-bid document – Court held that the stockholding requirement was satisfied based on the evidence presented by the respondents – The clause requiring physical inspection was held to be discretionary, and since it was waived for all bidders, there was no arbitrariness in the process [Paras 6-10, 17-18].

Judicial Review – Scope – Tender Matters – The Court reaffirmed that judicial interference in tender matters is limited to cases of arbitrariness, mala fides, or bias – Merely differing interpretations of tender terms by the court are not grounds for intervention – The authorities' decision-making process was upheld as fair and reasonable [Paras 11-16, 19-21].

Decision:

Writ petitions dismissed – No arbitrariness or mala fides found in the tender process – Petitioners failed to establish grounds for judicial intervention – No costs awarded [Paras 20-21].

Civil Law – Title and Possession – Will – The appellant's claim for declaration of title and recovery of possession was based on a will (Ex.A.1). The trial court dismissed the suit due to the appellant’s failure to establish her title and possession. The first appellate court affirmed the decision, citing discrepancies between the property claimed and the property described in the will. The courts below found no evidence of the appellant's possession or her predecessors' possession over the property [Paras 1-70].

Will – Proof of Title – Although the appellant claimed title through Ex.A.1-Will, the courts held that in the absence of boundaries in the will and clear proof of title of the testator, the appellant could not succeed. It was also noted that the appellant failed to produce a registered sale deed or any other evidence to support her claim of title through the testator [Paras 75-100].

Admissions – Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act – The appellant relied on Ex.A.6, a letter allegedly admitting the appellant’s title, but the courts rejected the document as it was not a free and voluntary admission, having been made under pressure at a police station. The courts held that admissions in such circumstances cannot establish title over immovable property [Paras 105-120].

Concurrent Findings – No Interference in Second Appeal – The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the concurrent findings of the lower courts, holding that the appellant failed to prove her title and possession. The court reiterated that weakness in the respondent’s defense could not validate the appellant's title claim [Paras 130-145].

Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed. The judgment and decree of both the trial court and first appellate court were upheld, and no costs were awarded​.

Criminal Law – Bail application – Accused allegedly caused fatal injuries to his mother during a quarrel – Accusations based on circumstantial evidence – Petitioner in judicial custody for over a year – Investigation complete but trial delayed – Petitioner's right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution considered – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions [Paras 2-12].

Right to Life and Liberty – Article 21 – Court noted the petitioner’s prolonged detention without charge framing – Held that extended custody violates the petitioner's right to life under Article 21 – Bail not to be withheld as punishment, reaffirming that bail is the rule and jail is the exception [Paras 8-11].

Judicial Delay – Sessions Court report indicated delay due to pending murder cases – Despite assurances, charge not framed even after six months – Court emphasizes prompt trial proceedings [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Bail granted with conditions including regular appearances before the Investigating Officer, prohibition on influencing witnesses, and surrendering of passport [Paras 12-13].

Industrial Dispute – Termination of Workman – Validity of Domestic Inquiry – Petitioner challenged the termination order and the Labour Court's decision – Workman dismissed for misconduct, including physical assault on a superior and a co-worker – Domestic inquiry upheld by the Labour Court – Petitioner failed to challenge the inquiry's fairness earlier – High Court affirmed the Labour Court's decision, holding that the inquiry was fair and the dismissal justified – No jurisdictional error found warranting interference [Paras 2, 3, 6].

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – High Court under Article 226 does not function as an appellate body – It corrects jurisdictional errors and acts contrary to natural justice, not errors of fact – High Court found no procedural errors or jurisdictional overreach in the Labour Court's decision – Petition dismissed on these grounds [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Petition dismissed – High Court upheld the validity of the domestic inquiry and dismissal of the petitioner for proven misconduct – No relief granted to the petitioner .

Motor Vehicle Accident – Compensation Enhancement – Appeal against compensation awarded under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of a 23-year-old in a road accident – Tribunal awarded ₹5,21,000 as compensation – Appellant claimed inadequate compensation, contesting the tribunal's assessment of income and personal expenses deduction – Court considered notional income due to lack of documentary proof of the deceased's earnings – Modified the award by applying Pranay Sethi's guidelines and awarded ₹5,38,300 with 7.5% interest per annum – Appeal partly allowed with enhanced compensation [Paras 1-16].

Assessment of Income – No documentary evidence to prove income of the deceased – Tribunal relied on notional income of ₹3,000 per month, affirmed by the High Court – Held, fixation of notional income and multiplier of 18 was appropriate as per Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi judgments – Future prospects at 40% of notional income applied, considering the deceased was below 40 years [Paras 5-9].

Conventional Heads – Enhanced compensation for funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of filial consortium awarded under Pranay Sethi – Rs.18,150 for funeral expenses, Rs.18,150 for loss of estate, and Rs.48,400 for loss of filial consortium allowed, replacing the lower tribunal's award – Compensation increased based on the legal precedents [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Compensation increased to ₹5,38,300 from ₹5,21,000 with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of claim filing – The respondent insurer directed to pay the revised amount within two months – No order as to costs [Paras 14-16].