Criminal Law – Voluntarily Causing Hurt by Dangerous Weapon – Section 324 IPC – Conviction Upheld with Sentence Modification – Appellant convicted for stabbing his wife with a dagger causing injuries on chest, abdomen and thumb – Trial Court acquitted appellant of Sections 326 and 307 IPC but convicted under Section 324 IPC – High Court reappreciated evidence and upheld conviction – Held: Prosecution proved offence under Section 324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1–29].

Evidence – Injured Witness – Credibility – Victim (PW1) sustained injuries and her testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitness (PW2) – Injured witness testimony carries great evidentiary value and ordinarily cannot be disbelieved – Held: Victim would not falsely implicate her own husband and allow real assailant to escape [Paras 12–13, 25–27].

Evidence – Delay in FIR – Explanation – FIR lodged after 13 days due to victim’s hospitalization and treatment in ICU – Held: Delay properly explained and does not affect prosecution case when supported by credible evidence [Paras 3, 27].

Evidence – Weapon of Offence – Non-production / Non-identification – Failure of witnesses to identify seized dagger and admission by Investigating Officer that MO was not the same weapon – Held: Non-production of weapon of offence not fatal when ocular and medical evidence convincingly establish offence [Paras 19, 26].

Medical Evidence – Nature of Injuries – Determination – Doctor opined injuries as grievous, but duration of hospitalization was short – Trial Court held injuries to be simple and convicted under Section 324 IPC – High Court concurred – Held: Determination of nature of injury by Trial Court based on medical report and surrounding circumstances justified [Paras 25, 28].

Evidence – Contradictions – Minor Discrepancies – Variations regarding opening of gate, presence of household members and seizure of bloodstained articles – Held: Minor contradictions do not demolish core prosecution case [Paras 8–9, 26–27].

Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Reduction – Considering age of appellant (63 years), period of custody already undergone and passage of time – Sentence modified to period already undergone – Fine maintained – Held: Ends of justice met [Paras 30–31].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 324 IPC upheld – Sentence reduced to period of detention already undergone – Judgment and order dated 20/03/2023 in Sessions Case No. 1 of 2022 affirmed with modification in sentence.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Cause of Action – Distinction Between Non-disclosure and Non-existence – Rejection Set Aside – Suit filed by Indian-origin locally recruited staff of Italian Embassy alleging pay discrimination under Italian Presidential Decree – Trial court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, holding no cause of action existed – Held: Learned Single Judge erred in prematurely evaluating merits – Factual questions such as classification, equal pay, and cost of living require evidence – Plaint disclosed triable issues – Impugned order set aside – Suit to proceed to trial [Paras 1–3, 16–22, 26–27]

Service Law – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Diplomatic Employment – Prima Facie Claim – Appellants pleaded being in the same homogeneous category as their Italian-origin counterparts – Alleged violation of Article 157 of Italian Presidential Decree – Held: Prima facie case made out – Whether pay parity applies requires trial – Plaint not liable to rejection at threshold [Paras 4–5, 17–18]

Pleadings – Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Summary Rejection Improper – Court reiterated that plaint must only be rejected if it fails to disclose any cause of action on its face – Distinction drawn between non-disclosure (procedural defect) and non-existence (merits-based conclusion) – Rejection not warranted where plaintiffs allege material facts supporting a right to sue, even if ultimately unproven [Paras 20–22]

Limitation – Recurring Cause of Action – Suit Maintainable – Respondents’ objection of limitation rejected – Held: Discriminatory pay alleged to be ongoing, giving rise to recurring cause of action – Part relief may be barred, but entire suit not liable to be dismissed – Doctrine of laches inapplicable [Paras 24–25]

International Law – Sovereign Immunity – Consent Under Section 86 CPC – Appellants obtained prior consent from Government of India to sue foreign state – Objection to maintainability on grounds of sovereign immunity not accepted at preliminary stage [Para 7, 14]

Judicial Precedents – Reiterated Principles – Reliance placed on Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Assn., (2005) 7 SCC 510, Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. M.V. Fortune Express, (2006) 3 SCC 100 – Courts must not adjudicate merits while considering rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Para 22]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order rejecting plaint set aside – Application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC dismissed – Suit restored for trial on merits [Paras 26–28]

Criminal Law – NDPS Offence – Anticipatory Bail – Recovery from Vehicle – FIR registered after recovery of 421 grams of heroin from scooter allegedly abandoned at the scene – Scooter traced to petitioner, who claimed it had been taken by a friend without his knowledge – Representation made by petitioner’s father not found credible – No recovery effected from petitioner directly – Second NDPS case already pending against him – Held: Petitioner failed to show false implication – Recovery linked to him through ownership and conduct – Bail rightly refused [Paras 2-4, 7]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 BNSS – Scope of Anticipatory Bail – Courts must balance individual liberty against the need for fair investigation – Supreme Court precedents (Kishor Vishwasrao Patil, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, Sushila Agrawal) reaffirm that anticipatory bail in serious offences should be granted only in exceptional circumstances – No prima facie case of false implication shown by petitioner – Grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would impede effective investigation [Paras 6, 8]

Custodial Interrogation – Justification – Citing Supreme Court in State v. Anil Sharma, Court held that custodial interrogation is more effective than protected questioning – Needed to trace source and network of contraband – Not a punitive measure but necessary for justice – Pre-arrest bail would reduce interrogation to a formality [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail denied – Custodial interrogation held necessary for thorough and fair investigation.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC – Limitation – Suit for Specific Performance – Plaintiff filed suit in 2015 for an oral agreement allegedly made in 2008, asserting cause of action arose in 2010 when defendant sold land to third party – Held: Under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the period is 3 years from the date fixed for performance or when notice of refusal is received. Even by plaintiff's own admission, refusal was manifest in 2010. Suit filed in 2015 is ex-facie barred by limitation. Clever drafting to create an illusion of cause of action cannot save a time-barred suit. [Paras 12-14, 18]

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Refund of Money – Limitation – Plaintiff alternatively sought refund of money paid in 2008 – Held: Suit for recovery of money is governed by Article 113 (3 years). Suit filed 7 years after alleged payment is barred. [Para 17]

Decision: Revision Application allowed. Plaint rejected. [Para 20]

Criminal Law – Bail - Rape Allegation – Consent – Breach of Promise to Marry – Petitioner accused of offences under Sections 69 and 75(1) r/w 3(5) of BNS for allegedly refusing to marry the victim after a consensual relationship – Relationship between petitioner and respondent lasted over three years – Victim lodged complaint only after petitioner refused marriage – Held: In light of Supreme Court rulings, consensual relationship based on a genuine promise to marry, later not fulfilled due to intervening circumstances, does not amount to rape – FIR lacks allegations showing false promise from inception – No prima facie case under Section 69 BNS made out [Paras 3–14]

Bail – Principles for Grant – Promise to Marry – Consent and Misconception of Fact – Court relies on binding precedents from Supreme Court including Amol Bhagwan Nehul, Prithivirajan, Kunal Chatterjee, and Maheshwar Tigga – Held: Physical relations on the basis of a genuine promise to marry do not constitute rape unless it is proved that the promise was false from the beginning – Petitioner's prolonged relationship and absence of coercion negate allegation of misconception of fact – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 4–16]

Bail – Conditions Imposed – Accused directed to furnish bond with sureties and report weekly to police – Restrictions imposed on travel outside Andhra Pradesh and on influencing witnesses – Cooperation with investigation mandated [Para 16]

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Bail granted to the petitioner/accused on furnishing bond and subject to strict conditions including weekly reporting, restricted travel, non-interference with witnesses, and cooperation with investigation.

Domestic Violence Act – Quash Petition – Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Petitioners (husband and parents-in-law) sought quashing of D.V. complaint on the ground that averments did not warrant issuance of process – Held: High Court ought not to exercise supervisory jurisdiction at threshold to quash D.V. proceedings – Aggrieved respondents must raise issues of maintainability before the Magistrate itself [Paras 2–4].

Domestic Violence Act – Issuance of Process – Applicability of Section 204 Cr.P.C. – Reliance placed on Full Bench decision in Arul Daniel v. Suganya – Held: Proceedings under D.V. Act do not involve issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. – Hence, principle laid down in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal regarding recall of process is not applicable to D.V. proceedings [Para 3].

Domestic Violence Act – Preliminary Issues – Jurisdictional Facts – Maintainability – Issues such as existence of domestic relationship or shared household can be raised and decided as preliminary issues before the Magistrate – Remedy of appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act also available against adverse orders [Para 3].

Article 227 – Self-imposed Restraint – Held: Entertaining petitions to quash D.V. complaints at threshold would defeat the statutory scheme and flood the High Court with maintainability challenges – Proper course is to approach the Magistrate for appropriate relief [Paras 3–4].

Personal Appearance – Dispensation – Considering the predominantly civil nature of proceedings under the D.V. Act, personal appearance of petitioners before the Magistrate dispensed with unless absolutely necessary [Para 5].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Liberty granted to petitioners to move the Magistrate raising preliminary objections in accordance with law laid down in Arul Daniel v. Suganya – No order as to costs – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed – Personal appearance of petitioners dispensed with subject to necessity.

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Acquittal – State challenged judgment acquitting respondents of offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 307/34 IPC – Held: Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that injuries were caused by accused – Acquittal justified [Paras 1, 17, 20].

Evidence – Identification of Accused – Absence of Test Identification Parade – Injured and alleged eye-witness did not know accused earlier – Accused identified for first time in Court – Occurrence took place at night and assailants were standing in darkness – Held: Dock identification without prior TIP is weak and unreliable – Identity of accused not established [Paras 12-13].

Evidence – Injured Witness – Contradictions – Injured stated in police statement that assailants were unknown and standing in dark – Subsequently identified accused in Court – Identification held improbable as injury was inflicted from behind and injured became unconscious – Testimony not trustworthy [Paras 12-13].

Witness Testimony – Presence of Eye-Witness – PW5 Kartar Singh claimed to be present – Injured did not name or refer to PW5 either in FIR or evidence – PW5 closely related to injured – Did not take injured to hospital – Held: Presence of PW5 at spot doubtful and possibility of being introduced witness cannot be ruled out [Para 14].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery – Shoe allegedly recovered from spot on third day and another from accused – Place of occurrence was busy thoroughfare – Held: Recovery highly improbable and unreliable [Para 15].

Motive – Absence – Though motive not mandatory in every case – In facts of present case absence of motive weakened prosecution case – Failure to establish reason for accused to attack complainant [Para 16].

Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Presumption of innocence reinforced by acquittal – Appellate Court to interfere only in case of perversity or illegality – No infirmity or perversity found in trial Court judgment – Acquittal upheld [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment dated 27.11.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridkot acquitting respondents upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Labour Law – Legal Representation – Section 36(4) ID Act – Employer’s Right to Counsel – Applicant, a small laundry employing 4–5 persons, sought leave to engage an Advocate for cross-examination in Reference proceedings – Labour Court rejected request solely on objection of workman – Held: Refusal was mechanical and contrary to settled law – Court must exercise discretion to prevent prejudice and ensure fairness – Impugned order set aside [Paras 6, 11–13, 17–18].

Industrial Adjudication – Fair Trial – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner was unskilled in legal procedure and unable to cross-examine or present evidence effectively – Denial of legal aid to such a party violates Articles 14 and 21 – Right to fair hearing includes reasonable opportunity to defend with appropriate representation – Leave under Section 36(4) must be interpreted liberally in such cases [Paras 15–16].

Statutory Interpretation – Consent and Leave under Section 36(4) – Twin conditions of opposite party’s consent and Court’s leave are mandatory – However, Court must scrutinise mala fide or arbitrary denial of consent – Labour Court has power to override such refusal in interest of justice – Consent cannot be used to exploit or disadvantage the other party [Paras 9–10, 14].

Legal Framework – Special Law vs. General Law – Advocates Act vs. ID Act – Section 30 of Advocates Act does not override Section 36 of ID Act – ID Act being special legislation governs representation before Labour Courts – Special law prevails over general law – Labour Court’s discretion remains intact [Paras 9, 23–24].

Judicial Precedents – Court relies on Bangalore Water Supply, Paradip Port Trust, T.K. Varghese, Thyssen Krupp Industries, and Yeshwant Harichandra Gharat to reaffirm that denial of representation must not result in inequality or miscarriage of justice – Representation must be allowed where required for effective participation [Paras 4.1–4.4, 14].

Decision: Civil Revision Application allowed – Labour Court's order dated 01.12.2023 quashed – Applicant permitted to engage Advocate of choice – Labour Court to proceed on merits – Appreciation recorded for Legal Aid Counsel Mr. Shailesh Pathak [Paras 18–20].

Consumer Law – Maintainability of Writ – Challenge to National Commission Orders – High Court holds that although writ under Article 226 is maintainable against National Commission orders, such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and ordinarily declined when Article 227 remedy exists – Petitioner’s challenge rejected as findings of Consumer Fora were concurrent, factual, and non-perverse – Held: Writ petition not maintainable on facts; no exceptional circumstance shown [Paras 18–21, 24–27]

Alternate Remedy – Article 226 vs. Article 227 – When supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is available, invocation of Article 226 ordinarily impermissible unless there is violation of natural justice, patent lack of jurisdiction, or infringement of fundamental rights – Supreme Court precedents in Whirlpool, Harbanslal Sahnia, Radha Krishan Industries, Ibrat Faizan and Rikhab Chand Jain applied – Petitioner failed to bring case within exceptions [Paras 12–16, 18–21]

Consumer Protection Act – Concurrent Findings – Real Estate Project – Consolidation Proceedings – Petitioner alleged force majeure under Section 56 of the Contract Act – Consumer Fora found that project land was under consolidation and possession never with petitioner – Petitioner's pleas rejected repeatedly – High Court refuses re-appreciation of facts in writ jurisdiction – Findings held reasonable and not perverse [Paras 22–24, 26]

Jurisdiction – Supervisory Role of High Court – National Commission treated as ‘Tribunal’ under Articles 136 & 227 – High Court reiterates its limited power of interference and declines to act as appellate authority over factual determinations of Consumer Fora [Paras 15–16, 18–21]

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – No interference warranted with orders of District, State or National Consumer Commissions – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 27].