Criminal Appeal – Summoning Order – Matrimonial Dispute – Allegations of assault, abuse, and threats – Present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against the impugned summoning order – Petitioners (accused) challenge the legality and propriety of the summoning order – Court examines the facts and submissions of both parties. [Para 1]

Prima Facie Case – Court reviews the factual matrix of the case – Respondent no. 2 (complainant) alleges mistreatment and theft of valuables by petitioner no. 1 and other family members – Court assesses the nature of allegations and examines evidence on record to determine if a prima facie case for summoning the accused is made out – Court’s discretion in issuing process is not mechanical but requires application of mind to the facts and the law. [Para 12]

Marital Dispute – The court notes the existence of a matrimonial dispute between the parties – Both sides have filed complaints and cases against each other – Court emphasizes the need for thoughtful consideration in matters related to matrimonial disputes before issuing process against the accused, who are the wife and in-laws of the complainant. [Para 18]

Decision – Impugned orders are set aside – Matter remanded to the learned magistrate for a fresh consideration of the question of summoning the opposite parties (present petitioners) – Opportunity to be given to the complainant (respondent no. 2) to be heard – A reasoned and speaking order is to be passed in light of the court’s observations. [Para 21]

Anticipatory Bail – Applicant seeks anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 420 of IPC and various sections of the Information Technology Act, 2018 – Application filed in the wake of apprehension of arrest for involvement in an exam cheating scam – High Court considers the merits of the application. [Para 1]

Prosecution's Allegations – Prosecution builds case on the basis of a scam involving remote access to computers for cheating in exams and subsequent monetary demands – Relies on WhatsApp chats and diary entries as prima facie evidence against the applicant. [Para 2, 5-6]

Prior Judicial Proceedings – Applicant's initial application for anticipatory bail rejected by the Sessions Court – Current application filed as an appeal against the Sessions Court's decision. [Para 3]

Applicant's Defense – Applicant claims false implication and lack of material evidence connecting him to the alleged offences – Seeks protection under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. [Para 4]

Court's Analysis – Court scrutinizes material on record, including payments and WhatsApp chats – Emphasizes the importance of cooperation with the investigation as per prior judicial observations. [Para 6-9]

Custodial Interrogation – High Court finds custodial interrogation necessary for effective investigation – Cites Apex Court's views on the efficacy of custodial interrogation. [Para 10]

Decision – High Court concludes that the applicant failed to make out grounds for anticipatory bail – Application for anticipatory bail rejected. [Para 11]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction based on Extra-Judicial Confession – Evaluation of Extra-Judicial Confession in light of Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant challenges the conviction based on an alleged extra-judicial confession – Analysis of principles governing the acceptance of extra-judicial confessions and their evidentiary value in the context of the case – Consideration of corroborative evidence – Special focus on the credibility and reliability of the witness to whom the confession was made. [Para 23]

Evidentiary Value of Extra-Judicial Confession – Weakness and Prudence – Court's view on the probative value of extra-judicial confessions – Emphasis on voluntariness, truthfulness, and credibility – Examination of circumstances where an extra-judicial confession can be relied upon for conviction – Caution regarding the inherent weaknesses of such evidence – Requirement of corroboration, but not as an invariable rule – Necessity for the confession to inspire confidence. [Para 26-27]

Circumstantial Evidence – Onus of Proof – Principles Governing Conviction – Analysis of the conditions precedent for establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence – The significance of consistency with the hypothesis of guilt, conclusive nature of circumstances, exclusion of alternative hypotheses, and completeness of the evidentiary chain – Reference to precedents highlighting the criteria for a valid conviction based on circumstantial evidence. [Para 36-37]

Evaluation of Witness Credibility – Inimical Relationship and Bias – Assessment of the reliability of witness testimony in the case – Examination of the relationship between the accused and the witness, and the potential for bias – Consideration of enmity and inimical terms between the parties involved – Relevance of the witness's motives and credibility in accepting an alleged confession. [Para 34-35]

Precedents – Applicability and Clarification – Reference to earlier judgments addressing the admissibility and probative value of extra-judicial confessions – Extracting guiding principles for evaluating extra-judicial confessions – Differentiating the facts of the present case from those considered in cited judgments – Emphasis on a comprehensive analysis of evidence and avoidance of presumptions. [Para 29-32]

Acquittal of the Accused – Failure to Establish Guilt – Inadequate substantiation of charges against the accused – Rejection of the extra-judicial confession as a reliable piece of evidence – Absence of corroborative evidence and credible witness testimony – Inadequate proof of the complete chain of events – Benefit of doubt accorded to the accused, leading to the reversal of the conviction and acquittal. [Para 42-43]

Civil Appeals – Restraining alienation of property – Application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC – Construction of apartments on disputed property – Dispute over ownership and partition of properties – Pleadings and contentions of the parties – Legal principles regarding burden of proof on self-acquired properties – Burden on claimant to establish properties as self-acquired – Examination of conduct of parties in granting injunction – Importance of proper documentation of sold apartments – Defendant’s reliance on mortgage and loan repayment – Security offered during the pendency of the suit – Comparison with relevant legal precedents.

Issues:

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in allowing I.A.Nos.1 and 6, granting temporary injunction and restraining the appellants from alienating the suit schedule property?

2. What should be the appropriate course of action regarding the injunction order?

Observations:

The dispute centers around a suit for partition and declarations regarding certain properties. Among the items of dispute, item Nos.5 and 6 have been the focus of contention due to the construction of apartments on these properties. The appellants argue that substantial investments have been made, apartments have been sold to buyers, and loans have been repaid. They emphasize that there is an urgent need to take note of the apartments sold, their ownership, and consider their conduct. The respondents stress the importance of proving self-acquired properties and present clauses from a Development Agreement. The trial court’s observations, conduct of parties, and the relevance of documentations are points of discussion.

Decision:

The burden lies on the claimant to establish these properties as self-acquired. The trial court’s order granting temporary injunction is scrutinized based on the conduct of parties, the necessity of proper documentation of sold apartments, and the appellants’ reliance on mortgage and loan repayment. The court considers the security offered during the pendency of the suit and compares the case with relevant legal precedents. Appeal Allowed Partly.

Identification Evidence – Examination of Key Witnesses – Trial court and appellate court convicted the accused based on identification testimony – Court examines the evidence of crucial eyewitnesses, PW2 and PW3 – Witness testimony hinges on identification of the accused as the driver of the tanker lorry involved in the accident – Both PW2 and PW3 identify the accused for the first time at the dock – Court highlights the significance of proper identification evidence, referring to the need for test identification parade (TIP) for corroboration – Court emphasizes the importance of familiarity with the accused prior to occurrence for identification to be reliable – Absence of prior familiarity and lack of statements to the police regarding identification – Court assesses the veracity of the identification evidence provided by PW2 and PW3. [Para 13, 16, 22]

Concurrent Conviction and Sentence – Court discusses the legal principles related to identification evidence – Cites the rule of prudence to corroborate identification testimony through TIP – Refers to the exceptions when the court can rely on the testimony without corroboration – Highlights the role of TIP as a stage of investigation, not constituting substantive evidence – Court underscores the discretion of the court of fact in determining the weight to attach to identification without TIP – Court mentions the reliance on the decision in Malkhansingh&Ors. V. State of M.P. – Court refers to the recent decision in Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab regarding the consequences of non-conducting TIP. [Para 14]

Evidentiary Value of Identification – Court analyzes the evidence provided by PW2 and PW3 – Notes the contradiction in their statements regarding the presence of light at the scene of occurrence – Highlights the omission to provide statements about the accused’s actions after the occurrence – Court addresses the absence of familiarity with the accused prior to the occurrence – Court underscores the requirement for proper corroboration through TIP in cases of unfamiliarity – Cites the case of PW15 as insufficient to establish the identity of the accused as the driver – Court examines the reliability of the identification evidence based on these factors. [Para 17, 21, 23]

Acquittal – Court concludes that the evidence of identification presented in the case is insufficient to establish the accused as the driver of the lorry – Conviction and sentence imposed by trial court and appellate court set aside – Accused acquitted – Court emphasizes the need for proper identification evidence in criminal cases and highlights the importance of adhering to legal principles when relying on identification testimony. [Para 24]

Civil Suit - Recovery of Stridhan Articles and Gifted Money - Evaluation of Evidence and Legal Claims - Appellants' Appeal against Decree - Examination of Inconsistencies and Corroboration - Interpretation of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code - Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Cases - Analysis of Donor Statements - Differentiation of Precedents - Conclusion on Appeals and Cross-Objection - Setting Aside Part of Decree, Dismissal of Cross-Objection, Cost Allocation, Decree Issuance, and Record Transmission.

Facts: The case pertains to an appeal against a decree in a civil suit involving the recovery of stridhan articles and gifted money. The appellants contested the decree on grounds of inconsistencies and lack of evidence corroboration.

Issues: The primary issues revolve around the credibility and consistency of evidence presented, the application of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code, and the distinction between standards of proof in civil and criminal cases. The evaluation of donor statements regarding gifted money and the differentiation of relied-upon precedents also come into play.

Observations: The court meticulously analyzed the evidence presented by the plaintiff, specifically regarding claims of ownership of gold ornaments and valuables. The evidence lacked consistency and corroboration, with discrepancies between the plaintiff's claims and her father's testimony. The appellants' compliance with an interlocutory court order, involving the presentation of some ornaments, was deemed insufficient evidence.

The court further examined the gifted money, its origin, and purpose. The oral statements of donors contradicted their written declarations, but the court refrained from accepting their oral evidence to modify the declarations. The court highlighted the importance of consistent evidence and corroboration in its analysis.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, leading to the setting aside of part of the decree that demanded the return of gold ornaments. The cross-objection was dismissed, and costs were assigned to the respective parties. The court directed the issuance of a decree and the prompt transmission of a copy of the judgment along with the lower court's record.

Termination of Probationer’s Employment – Determination of Stigmatic Termination – Principles for analyzing whether a termination order is punitive or stigmatic – Assessment of probationer’s performance and suitability for the post – Language and content of termination letter – Need for prior full-scale formal enquiry, finding of guilt, and allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct – Differentiating between unsuitability and misconduct as the basis for termination. [Para 15]

Application of Principles – Review of previous judgments – Emphasis on language imputing something beyond mere unsuitability for the job – Consideration of background and circumstances – Enquiry into probationer’s performance – Distinction between foundation and motive for termination – Circumstances where preliminary enquiry not proceeded further. [Para 16-21]

Parameters for Non-Stigmatic Termination – Factors indicating termination not punitive – Role of language in termination letter – Evaluation of probationer’s performance – Opportunity to improve – Role of employer’s satisfaction – No explicit imputation of misconduct in termination. [Para 21.1-21.5]

Impact of Communications in Termination – Consideration of communications preceding termination – Use of intemperate language – Evaluation of unsatisfactory performance – Efforts to assist probationer’s improvement – Role of employer’s communication and probationer’s response. [Para 21.6-21.10]

Examination of Enquiries – Role of enquiries in termination – Enquiry into misconduct – Differentiating between misconduct and unsuitability – Influence of enquiry outcomes on termination’s nature – Determination of genuine motive behind termination. [Para 21.13-21.16]

Decision – Termination based on unsatisfactory performance and suitability – Lack of explicit imputation of misconduct – No stigmatic language used – Termination not punitive or stigmatic – Writ petition dismissed. [Para 25-28]

1. Criminal Writ Petition – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct – Jurisdiction invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. – First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the petitioner – Challenge to the FIR on grounds of false allegations, suppression of material facts, and delay in filing – Detailed analysis of the events and evidence – Submission that improvements and suppression of facts present in the FIR – ICC constituted by the company to investigate allegations, exonerating petitioner – Earlier complaint lodged with the police station, not entertained – Delay of three months in lodging the FIR – Supreme Court’s stance on lodging FIR promptly to obtain accurate information – Mala fide intention apparent – Application of categories for quashing cases as illustrated by the Supreme Court – Abuse of process of law – Quashing of FIR in the interest of justice. [Paras 1, 7-13]

Criminal Appeal – Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Dismissal of application to summon respondent No.2 as an additional accused – Aggrieved petitioner challenging the order – Examination of evidence and legal aspects warranted further consideration – Special leave granted for review. [Para 1]

Prima Facie Evidence – Importance of admissible evidence to summon an additional accused – Court's discretion to proceed against an individual based on substantial, corroborated evidence – Need to uphold the principle of justice while considering an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. [Para 10]

Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Scope and limitations of the court's powers – Emphasis on evidence collected during trial or inquiry to summon an additional accused – Discretionary power to be exercised judiciously, ensuring that justice is upheld and innocent parties are not harmed. [Para 11]

Evidence Standard – Evaluation of petitioner's deposition – Significance of quality and admissibility of evidence – Highlighting that "hear say" evidence is inadmissible – Absence of admissible evidence against respondent No.2 for summoning her as an additional accused. [Para 13]

Conclusion – Court's decision to dismiss the petition upheld – No admissible evidence available to summon respondent No.2 as an additional accused – Principles of justice upheld by refusing to proceed without substantial, corroborated evidence. [Para 14]