Civil Writ - Recruitment Examination – Alleged Paper Leak and Mass Copying – Systemic Malaise – Petitioners sought quashing of entire recruitment process alleging circulation of OMR sheets on social media, identical wrong answers, geographical concentration of toppers and collusion – Held: Mere suspicion, conjecture or post-result dissatisfaction is insufficient to vitiate a recruitment process – Heavy onus lies on petitioners to establish systemic fraud going to the root of the selection [Paras 1, 12, 15].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Process – Limits of Interference – Court reiterated that interference is warranted only when sanctity of examination is compromised at a systemic level rendering segregation of tainted and untainted candidates impossible – Where allegations rest on disputed questions of fact and are examined by a fact-finding inquiry, courts should exercise restraint [Paras 10, 12–13].

Inquiry by Retired High Court Judge – Evidentiary Value – Respondents placed sealed inquiry report prepared by a retired Judge of the High Court – Inquiry exhaustively examined allegations relating to regional concentration, prior poor performance, age of candidates, familial relationships and identical wrong answers – Forensic examination of OMR sheets ruled out common authorship and impersonation – Inquiry report upheld fairness and transparency of examination – Held: Such report deserves due deference in absence of perversity or mala fides [Paras 2, 11, 16].

Objective-Type Examination – Similar Wrong Answers – Evidentiary Appreciation – Allegation that top candidates chose identical incorrect answers – Held: Similarity in wrong answers can arise from common preparation material, elimination techniques and exam stress – In absence of evidence of tampering, communication devices or access to answer keys, such similarity does not establish malpractice [Paras 11(e), 16].

Geographical Concentration of Successful Candidates – Effect – High number of toppers from particular districts alleged to indicate cheating nexus – Inquiry found candidates appeared at different centres with no roll-number or seating proximity – Held: Regional concentration by itself cannot give rise to presumption of collusion or unfair means [Paras 11(a), 16].

Cancellation of Examination – Doctrine of Proportionality – Court relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence to hold that cancellation of an examination is an extreme measure – Where no systemic breach is demonstrated and it is possible to segregate tainted candidates, cancellation would be disproportionate – Facts of Tanvi Sarwal and Sachin Kumar distinguished as involving proven large-scale and organized malpractice [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Recruitment process under Advertisement No. 6 of 2023 upheld – Interim order vacated – Inquiry report accepted and returned – No direction for fresh examination or criminal investigation warranted [Paras 18–21].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction – Appreciation of Evidence – Benefit of Doubt – Five accused convicted by Trial Court for offences under Sections 342, 365, 376(f) & (g) and 506 IPC – High Court reappreciated entire evidence in appeal – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 21–25].

Rape – Testimony of Prosecutrix – Reliability – Contradictions and Improbabilities – Prosecutrix alleged kidnapping and repeated gang rape for two consecutive days – Material inconsistencies between testimony of prosecutrix, her parents and FIR regarding confinement, rescue and movement of victim – Version not free from doubt – Sole testimony insufficient to sustain conviction in absence of reliable corroboration [Paras 21–22].

Kidnapping and Wrongful Confinement – Conduct of Victim – Opportunity to Escape – Alleged place of confinement was not isolated – Room situated among several occupied rooms with common staircase and toilet – Victim had opportunity to raise alarm or escape – Failure to do so rendered prosecution version doubtful [Paras 21–22].

Medical Evidence – Alleged Repeated Gang Rape – Absence of Injuries – Medical examination revealed no external or internal injuries consistent with allegation of repeated rape by five persons over two days – Though absence of injuries alone not decisive, in facts of present case medical evidence did not corroborate ocular testimony – Prosecution case weakened [Para 23].

Independent Witnesses – Non-Examination – Adverse Inference – Several independent witnesses allegedly present at time of rescue and apprehension of accused – None examined by prosecution – Call detail records of alleged ransom calls not produced – Unexplained omissions created serious doubt about prosecution story [Para 21].

Age of Prosecutrix – Inconsistencies – Conflicting evidence regarding age of prosecutrix – School record, MLC, FIR and witness statements inconsistent – Though Court assumed prosecutrix to be minor for argument’s sake, prosecution still failed to establish offences beyond reasonable doubt [Para 20].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Standard of Proof – Presumption of Innocence – Where evidence creates suspicion but does not conclusively establish guilt, accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Courts must guard against conviction on conjectures or moral suspicion [Paras 22–24].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence dated 11.12.2017 and order on sentence dated 18.12.2017 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Appellants directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Bail bonds cancelled [Paras 25–26].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Dowry Death – Interference by Appellate Court – State challenged acquittal of accused under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC – Principles governing appeal against acquittal reiterated – Unless findings are perverse or wholly unreasonable, interference not warranted – Trial court’s view found plausible and supported by evidence – Acquittal upheld [Paras 28–29].

Dowry Death – Section 304-B IPC – Essential Ingredients – Proof of “Soon Before Death” Cruelty – Death of married woman by poisoning within seven years of marriage established – However, prosecution failed to prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment “soon before her death” in connection with demand for dowry – Mere unnatural death insufficient to attract Section 304-B IPC [Paras 20, 23–28].

Presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act – Preconditions – Presumption arises only when prosecution proves cruelty or harassment for dowry demand soon before death – Burden on prosecution to establish live and proximate link between alleged dowry demand and death – In absence of reliable evidence of such nexus, statutory presumption not attracted [Paras 24–26, 28].

Evidence – Interested Witnesses – Improvements and Contradictions – Prosecution relied mainly on parents and relatives of deceased – FIR did not disclose alleged settlement of dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- or payment of Rs.1,00,000/- – Material improvements and inconsistencies between FIR and oral testimony – No independent witness examined to prove dowry demand or cruelty – Trial court justified in discarding prosecution version [Paras 19, 23, 28].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Poisoning – Nature of Death – Medical and CA evidence established death due to organochloro insecticide (Indosulfan) poisoning – However, no evidence that accused administered poison – Charge under Section 302 IPC not framed – Suicide by poisoning falls within “death otherwise than normal circumstances” but does not by itself establish dowry death [Paras 21–22].

Dowry Demand – Demand for Money for Employment – Distinction – Evidence indicated alleged demand of Rs.50,000/- for securing job for husband – Such demand not conclusively proved as dowry demand within meaning of Dowry Prohibition Act – Prosecution failed to establish that alleged demand was part of marriage consideration [Paras 23, 28].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order dated 10.01.2003 acquitting accused of offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 IPC affirmed – Record and proceedings to be remitted to trial court [Paras 28–29].

Real Estate Law – RERA – Delay in Possession – Statutory Interest – Mandatory Obligation – Allottee did not withdraw from project despite delay – Proviso to Section 18(1) of RERA Act mandates that promoter shall pay interest for every month of delay till handing over possession – Obligation is automatic and not contingent upon demand by allottee – Promoter liable to pay interest from committed date of possession till actual physical possession [Paras 22–25].

Private Settlement – Waiver of Statutory Rights – Invalidity – Builder relied upon private settlement stating no delay and waiver of claims – Held that private contract or settlement cannot override statutory rights and obligations created under RERA Act – Any agreement seeking to defeat or circumvent proviso to Section 18(1) is void ab initio – Settlement contrary to statute unenforceable [Paras 31–34, 46–47].

One-Sided / Dotted-Line Agreements – Duress – Public Policy – Cyclostyled settlement drafted by promoter with allottee required to sign on dotted line – “Take it or leave it” situation for allottee who had invested life savings – Such agreements ordinarily executed under compulsion and economic duress – Held to be unfair, one-sided and opposed to public policy – Cannot bind allottee [Paras 26, 29–30, 43–45].

Indian Contract Act – Section 23 – Agreements Defeating Law – Agreement whose object defeats provisions of law is unlawful – Settlement aimed at waiving statutory compensation under RERA defeats legislative mandate – Such agreement void under Section 23 of Contract Act, 1872 [Paras 37–39].

RERA – Object and Purpose – Consumer Protection – RERA Act enacted to ensure accountability, transparency and consumer protection – Rights under Sections 18 and 19 are absolute and unqualified – Promoter cannot contract out of statutory liability by private settlement – Statute prevails over contract [Paras 20, 33–36].

Proceedings under Chapter VIII – Penal Consequences – Failure of promoter to discharge mandatory obligation to pay interest exposes promoter to proceedings under Chapter VIII of RERA Act – Direction of Tribunal to initiate proceedings upheld [Paras 25, 40].

Appellate Interference – Scope under Section 58 RERA – Tribunal correctly appreciated facts and law – No illegality or perversity found – No substantial question warranting interference – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 48–50].

Decision: RERA Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order dated 01.04.2025 passed by U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal affirmed – Allottee entitled to interest at MCLR + 1% for delay – Costs upheld.

Criminal Law – Murder and Robbery – Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence – Appeal against conviction under Sections 302/34 and 394 IPC – Trial court convicted appellant relying on alleged recovery of weapon and money – One co-accused died during pendency of appeal resulting in abatement against him – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1–2, 82–84].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Requirement of Completeness – Law reiterated that circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with guilt of accused – Any missing link entitles accused to benefit of doubt – Held: Chain not complete as recovery of weapon, money and ornaments not proved – Conviction set aside [Paras 66–74].

Recovery of Weapon – Seizure Witnesses Turning Hostile – Knife allegedly recovered pursuant to disclosure – Seizure witnesses (P.W.6 & P.W.7) did not support prosecution and stated signatures obtained at police station – Recovery from place pointed out by accused not proved – Held: Alleged recovery unreliable and cannot be basis of conviction [Paras 51–54, 71].

Recovery of Stolen Property – Money allegedly recovered from appellant and co-accused – Seizure witnesses (P.Ws.8, 10, 11 & 12) either hostile or admitted that money was shown at police station – No recovery proved from possession of appellant – Held: Recovery not established beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 55–59, 72].

Hostile Witness – Evidentiary Value – Law summarized that testimony of hostile witness is not to be discarded in toto and may be relied upon to extent corroborated – However, where hostile witnesses do not support recovery and no corroboration exists, prosecution version fails – Applied to facts of case [Paras 59–64].

Medical Evidence – Proof of Homicidal Death – Post-mortem showed incised wound on neck causing hemorrhage and shock – Death homicidal proved – However, medical evidence alone insufficient to link appellant without reliable circumstantial chain [Paras 33–34, 73].

Benefit of Doubt – Criminal Jurisprudence – Where two views possible, view favourable to accused must be adopted – Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Serious doubts arise due to lapses in investigation and unreliable recovery evidence – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 77–81].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 20.09.1997 and sentence dated 22.09.1997 set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 302/34 and 394 IPC – Bail bonds discharged – Trial court records directed to be returned – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 83–86].

Criminal Law – Recall of Witness – Section 311 Cr.P.C. / Section 348 BNSS – Petitioners sought recall of PW-1 for further cross-examination – Trial court dismissed application holding no sufficient cause for earlier non-cross-examination – PW-1’s testimony earlier closed with remark “Nil. Opportunity given” when accused were unrepresented – Held: Order resulted in gross injustice warranting interference under inherent jurisdiction [Paras 1, 5–6].

Criminal Procedure – Interlocutory Orders – Bar of Revision – Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. / Section 438(2) BNSS – Dismissal of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. ordinarily interlocutory and revision barred – Held: Bar on revision does not oust inherent powers where interlocutory order results in gross injustice – High Court duty-bound to invoke inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice [Para 4].

Fair Trial – Right to Legal Representation – Accused compelled to cross-examine prosecution witness in absence of counsel – Accused being lay persons unable to conduct effective cross-examination – Held: Denial of legal assistance strikes at the core of fair trial and vitiates trial proceedings – In the name of expeditious trial, fairness cannot be sacrificed [Paras 5, 7–8].

Criminal Courts – Duty of Trial Court – Absence of Defence Counsel – Proper Course – Held: Where accused are unrepresented, trial court should appoint amicus curiae or seek legal aid counsel instead of compelling accused to cross-examine – Trial court may also exercise power to put questions to witness to reach truth – Emphasis on purity and fairness of trial [Paras 6, 8].

Inherent Powers – Ends of Justice – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court set aside impugned order refusing recall of witness – Trial court directed to grant fresh opportunity to accused through counsel to cross-examine PW-1 – Directions issued for systemic compliance and circulation among criminal courts to avoid recurrence [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 28.08.2024 set aside – Trial court directed to permit further cross-examination of PW-1 through counsel – Matter remitted for continuation of trial in accordance with law [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Abuse of Process of Court – Petition filed seeking quashing of sanction order, FIR and charge-sheet arising out of mutation dispute relating to immovable property – Allegations against petitioner confined to passing an order staying mutation proceedings pending title suit – Held: Criminal prosecution based solely on judicial/quasi-judicial order amounts to malafide prosecution and abuse of process of law [Paras 27, 31–33].

Public Servant – Executive Officer – Quasi-Judicial Functions – Protection under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – Executive Officer exercising powers in mutation proceedings held to be a “Judge” within meaning of Section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act – Orders passed in discharge of quasi-judicial duties protected from civil and criminal proceedings under Section 3(1) of the Act – Held: Protection squarely applicable where order passed bona fide in course of official duty [Paras 20–26, 30].

Mutation Proceedings – Stay Order Pending Title Suit – No Criminal Liability – Petitioner stayed mutation proceedings as title dispute was pending before competent civil court – Such order appealable before superior authority – Mere allegation of favouring a party insufficient to constitute criminal offence – Errors, if any, correctable in appeal, not through criminal prosecution [Paras 20, 27, 31].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 Cr.P.C. – Non-application of Mind – Sanction order dated 28.12.2020 found cryptic and non-speaking – No discussion as to why statutory protection available to petitioner should be withdrawn – Sanctioning authority failed to consider material and legal safeguards – Held: Sanction vitiated for non-application of mind and liable to be quashed [Paras 28, 32].

Judicial / Quasi-Judicial Acts – Distinction from Criminal Misconduct – Passing of an administrative or quasi-judicial order, even if erroneous, does not constitute offence unless actuated by malice, corruption or extraneous considerations – No prima facie material suggesting recklessness, malafides or corrupt motive on part of petitioner [Paras 26–27].

Earlier Complaint and Property Dispute – Colour of Civil Dispute – Dispute essentially civil in nature relating to title and mutation of property – Criminal proceedings initiated subsequently against Executive Officer held to be an attempt to settle personal scores arising out of property dispute [Paras 16–17, 31].

Decision: FIR in Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 238 of 2014, sanction order dated 28.12.2020, charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings quashed qua the petitioner – Criminal Miscellaneous Petition allowed.

Motor Vehicles Act – Appeal by Insurance Company – Challenge to award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Grounds of invalid driving licence and non-coverage of deceased labourer under insurance policy – Tribunal after appreciation of evidence held driver possessed valid driving licence – Document relied upon by insurer found doubtful – Photocopy of licence produced by driver accepted – No perversity in finding of Tribunal – Held: Finding regarding valid driving licence justified and does not call for interference [Paras 7–8].

Motor Accident Claim – Death of Labourer Travelling in Tractor-Trolley – Deceased engaged as labourer for unloading potato sacks – Vehicle insured for agricultural purposes – Accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of tractor – Tribunal rightly held negligence proved – Owner’s statement not sufficient to dislodge consistent evidence on record – Finding of rash and negligent driving upheld [Paras 2–3, 17].

Insurance Law – Liability of Insurer – Coverage of Employee/Labourer – Additional premium paid towards legal liability of employee/driver – Deceased travelling in connection with goods transported and not as gratuitous passenger – Labourer held to be employee of owner – Policy not breached as vehicle used for insured agricultural purpose – Insurer liable to indemnify owner – Held: Insurance Company rightly saddled with liability to pay compensation [Paras 9–15.2].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 147 – Third Party Risk – Employee as Third Party – Mere status as third party not sufficient – Liability arises only if covered under statute or terms of policy – In present case, policy extended coverage by charging additional premium – Tribunal correctly applied law – Full Bench decision in Bhav Singh v. Savirani distinguished and applied [Paras 11–15].

Precedent – Distinction – Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan – Tractor in that case used for non-agricultural purpose in breach of policy – Present case involved agricultural use as insured – Ratio not applicable – Appeal devoid of merit [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Award dated 20.10.2011 affirmed – Insurance Company liable to satisfy compensation of Rs.7,75,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum.

Anticipatory Bail – Cyber Crime – Misuse of Social Media and Digital Identity – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Cyber P.S. Case No.14/2025 involving serious allegations under BNS, 2023 and Information Technology Act, 2000 – Allegations of creation of fake email and Instagram accounts in the name of informant, circulation of obscene photographs, defamatory emails sent to employer, and threats of blackmail – Held: Prima facie materials collected during investigation disclose grave and serious offences – Discretion under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS declined [Paras 2, 6–9, 15].

Consensual Relationship – Limits of Consent – Right to Privacy and Dignity – Defence of consensual extra-marital relationship raised by petitioner – Court held that prior consensual relationship does not confer any right to violate dignity, privacy, or autonomy of the informant – Exploitation of vulnerability under guise of friendship or intimacy impermissible in law [Paras 9–10, 13–14].

Cyber Offences – Prima Facie Evidence from Case Diary – Investigation revealed petitioner’s mobile number used for creation of fake email and Instagram accounts – Obscene photographs sent even after registration of FIR to Vice-Chancellor of informant’s workplace – Independent witness supported allegations of threats, blackmail, and demand of Rs.25,00,000/- – Strong prima facie case made out against petitioner [Paras 6–8, 11].

Threats, Blackmail and Obscenity – Seriousness of Allegations – Allegations included threats to circulate obscene material, demand for money or divorce, and attempts to sabotage informant’s employment – WhatsApp chats revealed use of abusive and sexually explicit language – Such conduct held to transcend boundaries of lawful interaction and attract penal consequences [Paras 8, 14].

Anticipatory Bail – Extraordinary Discretion – Principles Governing Exercise – Power under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS is extraordinary and not to be exercised routinely – Court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that pre-arrest bail should not be granted where it may impede investigation in serious and organised offences – Grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances would adversely affect investigation [Paras 12, 15].

Investigation at Crucial Stage – Pre-Arrest Bail Likely to Hamper Probe – Digital evidence, cyber trail, and electronic devices required custodial interrogation – Grant of anticipatory bail would impair effective investigation and unearthing of full conspiracy – Public interest and victim’s rights weighed against petitioner [Paras 12, 15].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application dismissed – Interim protection earlier granted vacated – Court declined to exercise discretion under Section 438 CrPC / Section 482 BNSS in favour of petitioner.