FIR Quashing – Offences Under Sections 457 and 380 IPC – Compromise Accepted – The petitioner sought the quashing of an FIR registered for house-trespass and theft, contending that the matter had been amicably resolved through a compromise with the complainants – Held: The offences in question are of a private nature and do not affect the public at large – Following the Supreme Court's guidelines in Gian Singh and Narender Singh, the High Court has the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR based on compromise in cases with a predominantly private dispute – FIR quashed [Paras 8-14].

Quashing of FIR in Private Disputes – Judicial Precedent – The Court referenced prior decisions, including Musharaf vs. State of H.P. (2022), Harsh Anand vs. State of H.P. (2020), and Chaman Lal vs. State of H.P. (2023), where FIRs for similar offences were quashed following compromises between the parties – Following the principle of judicial consistency, the present petition is similarly allowed [Para 12].

Decision: The FIR No. 38 of 2022, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, and all consequential proceedings are quashed based on the compromise between the parties. Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Section 5(m) and 5(n) POCSO Act – Conviction Upheld - The appellant, convicted for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his 8-year-old granddaughter, challenged the trial court’s judgment. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding that the evidence of the victim girl, supported by medical testimony, conclusively proved the offence. The contradictions in the victim's statements were minor and did not affect the credibility of her testimony [Paras 13-15, 19].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration of Victim’s Testimony – No Reason for Interference - The Court observed that the medical examination confirmed the victim's hymen was torn, indicating penetrative sexual assault. This medical evidence corroborated the victim's account, and there was no compelling reason to doubt the trial court's findings [Paras 14-16].

Presumption Under Section 29 of POCSO Act – Burden on Accused Not Discharged - The Court noted that once the foundational facts of the offence were established, the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act came into play. The appellant failed to rebut this presumption, and his arguments about inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case were insufficient to cast doubt on the victim’s testimony [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Confirmed - The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the appellant’s conviction under Sections 5(m) and 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine imposed by the trial court were also upheld [Paras 22-23].

Maintenance – Modification of Maintenance Order – Quantum of Maintenance Increased – The Trial Court awarded ₹1,500/- per month as maintenance and ₹800/- as rent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act – Held: The first Appellate Court modified the maintenance to ₹10,000/- per month based on the petitioner’s substantial agricultural income – The petitioner’s objection that the enhanced maintenance was excessive, considering his age (83 years), was rejected by the High Court – Held: The petitioner had sufficient income from agriculture, pension, and other sources to justify the increased maintenance [Paras 3-7].

Assessment of Income – Agricultural Income and Other Earnings – Petitioner admitted earning ₹40,000-50,000 per month from agricultural land, ₹6,000 from ‘Kisan Nidhi Yojana’, and ₹1,700 as old age pension – Held: Given the income sources, the maintenance awarded by the first Appellate Court was neither excessive nor unreasonable – The legal and moral duty to support the spouse was upheld [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The order of the first Appellate Court upheld – Maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month was found reasonable and appropriate based on the petitioner’s income [Paras 8-9].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of Rape – Petitioners sought quashment of the FIR and charge sheet on the grounds that the prosecutrix is a consenting adult and the case has been amicably settled – Held: Offenses under Section 376 IPC (rape) are serious in nature and cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, as they have a profound impact on society – The court must be cautious when using its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, especially in cases of heinous crimes like rape [Paras 7-8, 16-17].

Compromise in Heinous Crimes – Non-Compoundable Offenses – Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that offenses such as rape cannot be compromised even if the parties have settled – Crimes like rape affect the dignity and sanctity of women, and the court emphasized that these offenses are not merely private matters but affect public interest as well – Held: The petition for quashing was dismissed, and the court underscored that compromise does not mitigate or nullify the charges in such cases [Paras 9-13, 15-16].

Decision:

Petition under Section 482 of CrPC dismissed – Criminal proceedings will continue, as offenses of rape cannot be quashed based on compromise between the parties, given their serious nature and societal impact [Para 17].

Right to Privacy vs. Right to Information – Victim Protection in Crimes Against Women and Juveniles – The petitioner challenged the administrative orders of the High Court prohibiting the publication of judgments and personal details in cases involving women, juveniles, and other sensitive matters, arguing that it violates the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) – Court held that the right to privacy under Article 21 takes precedence over the right to information – Victims of sexual offences and juveniles form a vulnerable class and are entitled to special protections to safeguard their dignity and personal liberty – The administrative orders and statutory provisions protect the identity of victims and are consistent with constitutional principles [Paras 5–5.3, 8–9].

Balancing Fundamental Rights – Public Interest and Proportionality – Court cited the Supreme Court decision in Association for Democratic Reforms (Electoral Bond Scheme) vs. Union of India, 2024 (5) SCC 1, to apply the proportionality standard in balancing conflicting fundamental rights – It concluded that the right to information is subject to reasonable restrictions, including those aimed at protecting the dignity and privacy of victims in crimes against women and juveniles – The public interest in safeguarding the identity of vulnerable victims outweighs the petitioner's right to information [Paras 4–6.3].

Administrative Orders and Statutory Provisions – Protecting Victim Identity – The administrative orders issued by the High Court, along with provisions like Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 33 of the Special Marriage Act, are designed to protect victims' personal details from being disclosed publicly – These protections are in line with Article 21, which guarantees a dignified life, and are therefore valid – The Court dismissed the petition, affirming that victim protection measures cannot be sacrificed for the petitioner's right to information [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Court upheld the administrative orders and statutory provisions that protect the identity of victims in sensitive cases, ruling that the right to privacy under Article 21 supersedes the petitioner's right to information under Article 19(1)(a) – The right of victims to remain anonymous takes precedence in cases involving women, juveniles, and other vulnerable groups [Paras 10–11].

Commercial Law – Civil Revision Petition – Maintainability – Petitioners challenged the rejection of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint – Petitioners argued that the suit was barred by limitation and failed to comply with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 regarding mandatory pre-institution mediation – Held: Civil Revision Petition not maintainable due to the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against challenging interlocutory orders – Petitioners failed to file an appeal under Section 13(1) or (1A) of the Act – Dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition upheld [Paras 9-17].

Limitation Law – Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Petitioners contended that pre-institution mediation was mandatory and that the suit violated this requirement – Respondent argued that the suit, filed before 20.08.2022, was exempt from the mandate per the Supreme Court's ruling in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. – Held: Patil Automation applies prospectively from 20.08.2022, and the suit, filed on 30.11.2021, is exempt [Paras 3, 7].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of the Constitution – Petitioners invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India to bypass the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – The court reiterated that the High Court’s power under Article 227 is not unrestrained and must be used sparingly, especially in light of specific statutes aimed at expediting dispute resolution – Held: Article 227 cannot be used to circumvent the bar on revision petitions under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed as not maintainable under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – No costs awarded – No consideration of the merits of the dispute [Paras 18-19].
 

Bail - Hostile Witness – Testimony’s Value – Not Entirely Disregarded – The victim initially incriminated the applicant during her examination-in-chief, but later retracted during cross-examination – Held: Testimony of a hostile witness cannot be wholly disregarded – The court should scrutinize the evidence and rely on parts that remain credible and consistent with the prosecution’s case [Para 7].

Delayed Cross-Examination – Manipulation of Witness – Fair Trial – The victim's cross-examination was deferred by two months, and during this time, the applicant may have influenced the witness – Held: Deferring cross-examination for such a long period without valid reason can lead to manipulation of witnesses, as observed in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab – A fair trial requires prompt and continuous examination to prevent witness tampering [Paras 8-10].

Bail Denied – Manipulation of Witness and Seriousness of Charges – Given the seriousness of the charges, the manipulation of the victim's testimony, and the circumstances leading to the delay in cross-examination, the court found no grounds to grant bail – Bail application rejected [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Bail application rejected – The court emphasized the seriousness of the charges, potential manipulation of the witness, and the need for a fair trial without interference – The trial court was directed to expedite the trial in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court [Paras 11-13].

Preventive Detention – Non-Application of Mind – Failure to Consider Bail Orders – Detention order quashed  - The petitioner was granted bail in all the FIRs mentioned in the detention order, yet the detention order failed to mention the grant of bail – Held: Non-mentioning of bail orders indicates non-application of mind by the detaining authority, thus rendering the detention order invalid [Paras 10-11].

Delay in Passing Detention Order – Absence of Proximate Link with FIRs – The detention order was passed nine months after the registration of the last FIR – Held: Lack of a proximate link between the grounds of detention and the FIRs undermines the legitimacy of the detention order [Paras 13-14].

Failure to Consider Representation – Violation of Constitutional Rights – The petitioner’s representation was not considered by the authorities despite being submitted through proper channels – Held: Non-consideration of the representation constitutes a violation of the constitutional and legal guarantees, further invalidating the detention order [Paras 15-16].

Provision of Grounds of Detention – No Prejudice Caused to Petitioner – The petitioner was provided with the grounds of detention and requisite documents within the statutory period, and he was informed of his right to make a representation – Held: The petitioner’s contention that he was not informed about his rights to make a representation is baseless [Para 14].

Decision: Detention order quashed – The court held that the failure to consider bail orders and the delay in passing the detention order demonstrated non-application of mind – The non-consideration of the petitioner’s representation violated constitutional rights – Accordingly, the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Kathua, is quashed, and the petitioner is to be released from custody unless required in any other case [Paras 17-19].

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Prima Facie Marriage Dispute – Necessity to Establish Valid Marriage – The petitioner denied that the opposite party (Respondent No. 2) was his legally married wife and argued that she was his maid. The petitioner claimed to have been married to another woman since 1979 and provided documentary evidence, including a marriage invitation card and family nomination forms. The trial court erroneously concluded that the marriage was undisputed and awarded interim maintenance – Held: The court below must examine the disputed question of whether the opposite party is the petitioner's legally married wife before granting interim maintenance. The impugned order was set aside [Paras 6-9].

Wife Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Legal Definition – Need for Valid Marriage – The term "wife" under Section 125 Cr.P.C. refers to a legally married wife. In cases where the marriage is seriously disputed, the claimant must prima facie establish the existence of a valid marriage before any maintenance order can be made – Held: Prima facie proof of marriage is required even in summary proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The trial court must re-examine the issue after allowing both parties to present evidence [Paras 7-9].

Perverse Finding by Lower Court – Misinterpretation of Disputed Marriage – The trial court erred in holding that the marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was undisputed, despite the petitioner's consistent denial and submission of evidence showing an existing marriage with another woman. This finding was perverse – Held: The trial court's order was based on an erroneous conclusion and was set aside [Paras 6, 9].

Opportunity for Fresh Hearing on Maintenance – Directions to Lower Court – The High Court directed the lower court to rehear the application for interim maintenance, allowing both parties to submit documents and evidence regarding the disputed marriage and other issues. The trial court was instructed to pass a fresh order within eight weeks – Held: The lower court must consider the disputed marital relationship and other issues afresh without being influenced by previous findings [Para 9].

Decision – CRR 2554 of 2019 allowed – The interim maintenance order dated 05.04.2019 was set aside, and the case was remanded to the lower court for a fresh hearing. Consequently, CRR 326 of 2024 was also allowed, and the execution proceeding was quashed [Paras 9-11].