201. POCSO – Rape – Regular bail – Applicant submitted hat the victim in her examination u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that she was known to the applicant and she on her own left her house and joined the company of the applicant and they did not establish any physical relationship -- These facts admitted by State -- Bail allowed. (UK HC) Decided on: 08.10.2024

202. POCSO – Rape – Regular bail – In statement u/s 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., victim stated that the victim and the applicant both were in relationship and their relations were consensual – State submitted that the victim is a minor – Bail allowed. (UK HC) Decided on: 08.10.2024

203. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972), Section 9, 39, 48, 50, 51 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Recovery of elephant tusk – Regular bail -- No expert opinion at this stage -- Applicant has no criminal history – Bail allowed. (UK HC) Decided on: 08.10.2024

204. Waqf property – Jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunal -- Gair Mumkin Khangah and Takia -- Tribunal decided the issue of jurisdiction and held that the question of title would be decided by the Collector under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, however decided the other issued on merits – Tribunal would not be excluded from adjudicating the matter -- Tribunal having held that it did not have the jurisdiction to try and decide the suit, the findings on merits on other issues could not have been rendered by it -- Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. (P&H HC) Decided on: 04.10.2024

205. Rent appeal – Application for additional evidence – Pendency of -- Appellate Authority has to consider the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and decide the same either while passing the main judgment or by virtue of a separate order of even date at the time of deciding the appeal, which has not been done -- Judgment of the Appellate Authority set aside, case remanded back to the Appellate Authority. (P&H HC) Decided on: 04.10.2024

206. Rejection of plaint – Application pending since 2019 in civil suit of 2018 -- Though the reply to the application was filed by the plaintiff on 25.03.2019 but the said application has not been disposed of in the last more than 05 years -- Trial Court directed to dispose of the pending application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC within next two months positively. (P&H HC) Decided on: 04.10.2024

207. Suit for mandatory injunction – Impleadment of Vendor as party -- Petitioner/ plaintiff purchased suit property -- However, the neighbours raised dispute as to whether the property was part of khasra number or part of Lal Lakir -- Plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the sub-Registrar/ Tehsildar to disclose the particulars of the property -- Said defendant was proceeded ex parte -- Trial court dismissed the application for impleading Vendor as party – Impugned order set aside as the vendors of the plaintiff are proper party to the suit -- Trial Court directed to permit the plaintiff to implead his vendors as a party to the suit and then proceed further in accordance with law. (P&H HC) Decided on: 04.10.2024

208. Written statement not filed on time -- Defence struck off -- Despite more than one year, the written statement was not filed -- There was lapse on the part of the defendants in not filing the written statement but request made for granting only one opportunity to file written statement -- Case is still at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence and not even a single witness has been examined -- Trial Court directed to provide only one opportunity subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the respondents-plaintiff. (P&H HC) Decided on: 04.10.2024

209. Written statement not filed on time -- Defence struck off -- Petitioner/ defendant is single mother, who was unable to engage the counsel, due to which she could not file the written statement -- Trial Court directed to provide only one opportunity to the petitioner to file the written statement subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the respondents-plaintiffs. (P&H HC) Decided on: 04.10.2024

210. Cross-examination of plaintiff – Deliberate delay – Trial court declined prayer to cross-examine the plaintiff – Deliberate attempt on the part of petitioner-defendant No.2 to delay the proceedings -- Impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be said unjustified -- Although, there is no justification for setting aside the impugned order, in the interest of justice, trial Court directed to provide one opportunity to him to cross-examine PW1/ plaintiff subject to costs of Rs.50,000/- payable to plaintiff-respondent. (P&H HC) Decided on: 04.10.2024

211. Eviction petition -- Amendment of written statement -- Case was at the stage of tenants’ evidence, when the application for amendment of written statement was moved – Tenant stated that he had recently come to know about another double storey commercial building to be belonging to the landlords – Held, in case, the tenant finds that landlord has any other property in his occupation, he can produce necessary evidence in this regard, for that purpose, amendment of the written statement is not required – Amendment declined. (P&H HC) Decided on: 04.10.2024

212. Suit for specific performance -- Agreement to sell -- Adverse possession – Plea of – Permissive possession -- Once the defendant himself pleaded that he is in possession under the agreement to sell and to retain possession relies on the part performance of contract to sell, he cannot plead adverse possession – Held, possession of a proposed vendee under agreement to sell always is a permissive possession under the vendor till he pleads and proves that he gave up the permissive possession and re-entered into possession which was open and hostile to the knowledge of the true owner. (P&H HC) Reserved on 20.08.2024 Pronounced on 04.10.2024

213. Voyeurism – Rioting – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/ heinous crime, rather same are petty offences -- FIR as well as consequent proceedings quashed and set aside. (HP HC) Decided on: 04.10.2024

214. Commercial quantity – Regular bail – Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act -- Petitioner is in custody for last 1 year and 10 days -- Charges framed on 08.04.2024, out of a total of 18 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far -- Trial is likely to take a considerable time, thus his further incarceration would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial – Bail allowed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 04.10.2024

215. Cheating and forgery – Corruption case – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Matter compromised between the borrowers and the Bank -- Upon payment of the amount under the OTS, the loan account of the borrower has been closed -- Only question would be, as to whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present appellants would be justified or not -- In Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4353 of 2018, it was held that when the matter has been compromised between the borrower and Bank, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would not be justifiable – Criminal proceedings quashed. (SC) Decided on: 03.10.2024

216. Expeditious disposal of execution petition -- Warrants of possession not executed -- Despite the Decree Holder (DH) being present, none came for execution of the warrants of possession -- Objections filed by the judgment debtor dismissed, however, second objections have been filed – Revision petition disposed off with a request to the Executing Court not to grant any unnecessary adjournments and to decide the execution application pending before it expeditiously and in accordance with law. (P&H HC) Decided on: 03.10.2024

217. Eviction petition -- Discovery of documents -- A party cannot be compelled to produce the document if he/ she/ they were to contend that the original document was not in their custody -- Rent Controller rightly observed that an “appropriate inference would be drawn at appropriate stage for non-production of original documents” -- Said observation is in accordance with law. (P&H HC) Decided on: 03.10.2024

218. Abetment of suicide – Deceased humiliated in the official meeting -- Quashing of FIR – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court – Appellant-Senior officers convened a meeting with the employees of the company -- Company wanted around fifty to sixty office employees to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) -- Alleged that in the course of the meeting the deceased was humiliated by the appellants & he felt very bad about it and he committed suicide – No case against the appellants made out – Appeal allowed, Criminal proceedings quashed. (SC) Decided on: 03.10.2024

219. Case under SC/ ST Act – Compromise quashing of FIR – FIR along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 03.10.2024

220. Compromise quashing of FIR -- Rash and negligent driving/ endangering life – Offences alleged to have been committed by petitioner do not involve offences of moral turpitude or any grave/ heinous crime, rather same are petty offences -- Possibility of conviction is remote and no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceedings -- FIR as well as consequential proceedings quashed and set aside. (HP HC) Decided on: 03.10.2024

221. NDPS Case – Search and seizure – Procedure of -- Material difference between the provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act is that Section 42 requires recording of reasons for believing and for taking down of information received in writing with regard to the commission of an offence before conducting search and seizure -- While acting u/s 43 of the NDPS Act, the empowered officer has the power of seizure of articles etc., and the arrest of a person, who is found to be in possession of any narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in a public place where such possession appears to him to be unlawful. -- A nakka was set up on Highway and at the instance of the secret informer, a truck was stopped and the driver of the truck was apprehended -- State has rightly submitted that the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act would be applicable and provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act are held to be not applicable. (P&H HC) Decided on: 03.10.2024

222. Compromise quashing of FIR -- Human Smuggling – Cheating – Compromise effected between the parties without any pressure or coercion and out of their free will -- FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 03.10.2024

223. Execution of Decree -- Judgment debtor/ Society placed on record the evidence in the form of allotment letters, revealing that allotment was made in the name of five persons as mentioned in para No.2 of the affidavit as desired by the decree-holder -- Petitioner cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate -- She is estopped so as to make any claim regarding non allotment of plots -- This claim rightly rejected by the Executing Court. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 25.09.2024 Decided on: 01.10.2024

224. Contractual employee -- Regularization of service -- Petitioner was appointed as a Driver in 2005 on contract basis -- Service of the petitioner was regularized in the year, 2012 -- Petitioner held entitled to regularization from the date of completion of one year contractual service after initial appointment, with all consequential benefits from the due date. Covered matter, Vikram Singh’s case 2023 :HHC: 13114 = (2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19595. (HP HC) Decided on: 01.10.2024

225. Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner was arrested on 06.05.2024 and final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. presented -- Petitioner is a first offender and there is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner is in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence -- Further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose – Bail allowed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2024

226. Compromise quashing of FIR – Putting person in fear of accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion (Section 389 IPC) – Offence for which the accused have been charged are not of serious nature – Compromise will go a long way in ironing out the differences for betterment of future life of the parties – FIR alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 01.10.2024

227. Retirement of employee -- Leave encashment – Extension of service -- Carry forward of leave encashment -- Employee retired at the age of 58 years, entitled for maximum of 300 days of leave encashment -- Employee could not apply for extension only to adjust the unutilized earned leaves as only encashment of 300 days is admissible -- Petitioner availed 29 days of leave hence, 21 days leave which is more than the 8 days leave admissible during the extension period, same is to be deducted from the total kitty of 300 days leave. (P&H HC) Decided on: 30.09.2024

228. Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Compromise quashing of conviction and sentence – Back-out from compromise – Effect of -- As per compromise, the petitioner has already paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant and the complainant pleaded no objection -- Held, resiling from the compromise by the complainant is immaterial and the continuation of the case would be an abuse of the process of the Court -- Petition allowed, complaint alongwith the judgment of conviction and order of sentence quashed on the basis of compromise. (P&H HC) Decided on: 30.09.2024

229. Maintenance to wife/ children – Wife started earning – Effect of -- In case the wife in order to meet the responsibilities of herself and her two children started working at some place to make additional income, cannot be a reason for the husband to escape his liability to pay the maintenance. (P&H HC) Date of Decision: 27.09.2024

230. Recovery suit – Pronote – Proof of -- Non-appearance of defendant – Adverse inference -- Defendant having not entered the witness box, adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him that he did not want to face the cross-examination -- In the presence of the testimony of the two attesting witnesses of the pronote as well as receipt proving due execution of the same by the defendant, no reliance could have been placed upon the statement of an expert witness disputing the signature of defendant, particularly when defendant himself had not entered into the witness box, to deny his signature. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 23.09.2024 Pronounced on: 25.09.2024

231. Divorce petition – Transfer of -- Weightage ought to be given to the convenience of the wife in the transfer applications, relating to the matrimonial dispute -- Parents of respondent-husband can look after the children – Custody petition filed by wife, petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and the petition u/s 12 of the DV Act are pending in the Courts at Gohana and the complaint for registration of FIR u/s 498-A IPC is pending with the police authorities, Gohana – Divorce petition transferred from Meham to Gohana. (P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2024

232. Agreement to sell – Minor’s interest – Suit for specific performance -- Agreement to sell executed by defendant-respondent No.1/ one of heir of deceased -- No power of attorney executed by the other heirs in favour of defendant-respondent No.1 -- Power of attorney produced was executed after the execution of the agreement to sell -- Further, defendant-respondent Nos.6 and 7 were minors, without any permission from the Guardian Court their share could not in any case be sold, no such permission by the Guardian Court is forthcoming – Ld. Appellate Court held “said agreement being opposed to public policy and law could not be treated as a valid agreement to give rise to the cause of specific performance” – No ground to interfere, appeal dismissed. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 11.09.2024 Decided on: 25.09.2024

233. Recovery suit – Bahi khatta entries -- Only reliance of the plaintiff-appellant was on the bahi khatta entries -- Defendant-respondent had denied the bahi khatta entries and hence the onus lay on the plaintiff-appellant to prove the signatures in the bahi khatta entries -- Neither the details of the cheques nor the account number/ account statement was produced by the plaintiff-appellant -- It was incumbent upon the plaintiff-appellant to prove his case by leading affirmative evidence -- Onus to prove that the loan was taken by the defendant-respondent lay heavily on the plaintiff-appellant who failed to discharge the same – Suit dismissed. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 03.09.2024 Decided on: 25.09.2024

234. Appointment of Lambardar – Interaction quality of candidate – Consideration of -- Appellant was quizzed by the Collector, District Collector found that appellant was incapable of telling anything about himself, it was found that he was not a suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar – Respondent no. 4 was appointed as he appeared to be more mature and healthy person -- The interaction part, which is most important aspect to find out the capability as such, was totally lost sight of by the Financial Commissioner while interfering in the well-considered order of the Collector – Ld. Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.4 and set-aside the order passed by the Financial Commissioner – No merit in appeal, dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2024

235. Dowry case -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Husband not accused in criminal case -- While the husband institutes the civil suit, his wife has chosen to initiate criminal proceedings -- Interestingly, there is no reference of one proceeding in the other -- On 27.02.2013, the husband filed the Special Civil Suit against the three appellants, i.e. his father, stepmother and stepbrother seeking for a declaration that the property is ancestral in nature and that the father has no right to alienate or dispose of the property and also sought a declaration that he is entitled to use the trademark of the family business – Complainant/ wife filed the criminal complaint on 01.03.2013 alleging demand of dowry and threat by appellants that she and her husband will be denied a share in the property -- Provocation for the Complaint/ FIR is essentially the property dispute between father and son – FIR and Chargesheet quashed. (SC) Decided on: 25.09.2024

236. Attempt to murder – Simple injuries – Effect of -- Question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of Section 307, IPC is a question of fact and not one of law – Minor nature of injuries is not sufficient reason to not frame a charge u/s 307 IPC. (SC) Decided on: 25.09.2024

237. Evidence law -- Injured eye-witnesses -- Sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight -- Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility -- If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence. (SC) Decided on: 25.09.2024

238. Primary evidence -- Original mobile tendered in evidence -- Certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act – Requirement of -- Once the plaintiff offered to tender original mobile-phone which is a primary evidence, there was no requirement for certification under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act as the same is contemplated in a situation wherein electronic evidence is being led by way of secondary evidence. (P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2024

239. Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- There is a possibility of deceased and (PW-1) coming to the shop of accused no.2 and a fight taking place between the two groups -- Nothing on record to establish that there was any pre-meditation -- Possibility of the offence being committed by the appellants without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out -- Nothing on record to show that the appellants have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner -- Appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt -- Case would be covered under Part-I of Section 304 of IPC -- Appellants have undergone the sentence of more than 8 years without remission – Appeals partly allowed, appellants sentenced to the period already undergone. (SC) Decided on: 24.09.2024

240. Promotion during pendency of criminal case -- DPC – Charge-sheet thereafter – Putting the result in sealed cover – Legality of -- Disciplinary/ criminal proceedings can be said to be initiated against the employee only when a charge memo is issued to the employee in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in the competent Court -- Sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after issuance of the charge-memo/ charge-sheet -- Pendency of investigation and grant of prosecution sanction will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. -- Charge sheet was filed by CBI, after completion of investigation on 25th October, 2008, whereas the DPC to consider the promotion of Additional Commissioners of Income Tax was convened on 22nd February, 2007, wherein the sealed cover procedure was adopted qua the respondent. -- It is thus clear that the charge sheet against the respondent was filed well after the meeting of the DPC was convened. Hence, it could not be said that the prosecution for a criminal charge was pending against the respondent when the DPC was convened -- Therefore, the move on the part of DPC to resort to the sealed cover procedure was unjustified and unsustainable on facts and in law -- The ‘Sealed Cover’ wherein the assessment of the respondent was considered by the DPC was opened in court -- Letter shows that the DPC assessed the respondent to be ‘FIT’ for promotion -- Consequential steps in light of the above recommendations shall follow. (SC) Decided on: 24.09.2024

241. Writ petition – Suppression of facts -- Deliberate suppression of relevant particulars, which were adverse to the claim -- The filing of the writ petition was, therefore, nothing short of an abuse of process and did not warrant examination on merits and liable to be non-suited on this short ground -- If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition should be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. K.D. Sharma’s case (2008) 12 SCC 481 relied. (SC) Decided on: 24.09.2024

242. Long pendency of Divorce petition – Speedy disposal – Mandate of -- Suit of year 2020 -- Direction issued to the Principal Judge, Family Court to decided case in accordance with law maximum within a period three months in light of Section 21-B of Act, 1955 after providing opportunity of hearing to opposite party and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. (Allahabad HC) Decided on: 23.09.2024

243. Mutation entry – Inaction of authority – Direction sought for respondent No.2 to take immediate decision on the mutation application moved by petitioner -- NOCs of other legal heirs have already been submitted by the petitioner in the year 2013 – Direction issued to respondent No.2 to take a decision on the mutation application by a reasoned and speaking order not later than three months. (UK HC) Decided on: 23.09.2024

244. Short term bail – Liver transplantation of father – Applicant proposed to donate his liver -- Applicant ordered to be released on short term bail for a period of six weeks on humanitarian ground. (UK HC) Decided on: 23.09.2024

245. Suit of year 2014 – Early decision of case – Petition to issue a direction to Court to decide Original Suit within a stipulated time – Direction issued to Civil Judge (Senior Division) to decide the suit in accordance with law, if possible within a period of nine months after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment. (Allahabad HC) Decided on: 23.09.2024

246. Expert evidence – Conviction -- Without independent and reliable corroboration, the opinion of the handwriting experts cannot be solely relied upon to base the conviction. (SC) Decided on: 23.09.2024

247. Public appointments – Waiting list for one year – Visually impaired category -- In case the appointments are not offered to the candidates for more than a period one year, the purpose of preparation of waiting panel will be rendered useless -- It will be providing a handle to such authorities to act arbitrarily -- Respondents cannot be allowed the benefit of their own wrongs, more particularly when a serious prejudice to the right of the appellants is the consequence -- Appeal allowed, fresh advertisement qua visually imparted category quashed, respondents directed to fill up the vacancies from the waiting list. (HP HC) Reserved on: 18.09.2024 Decided on: 23.09.2024

248. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need – Ownership/ Use and occupation of other building -- Landlord is not obliged to disclose premises, which are not in his occupation -- Property not in occupation of the landlord must be distinguished from the owned properties and that if the property is not in occupation, no disclosure is necessary. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 12.09.2024 Pronounced on: 23.09.2024

249. Maintenance to wife -- Divorce petition pending – Applicant is to be treated as the legally wedded wife of the respondent till the marriage between them is dissolved by a valid decree of divorce -- Maintenance cannot be denied to her simply on the ground that the respondent has filed a petition for declaring the marriage as a nullity – Husband earning Rs. 2,47,661/- and he was getting Rs.1,38,546/- after the deduction of PF and income tax -- Maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive. (HP HC) Reserved on: 27.08.2024 Decided on: 23.09.2024

250. Divorce petition instituted on 16.10.2023 – Expedite disposal – Contention that respondent-husband has taken six adjournments in a year to delay the proceedings and as per Section 21-B (2) all endeavors should be to decide the matrimonial suit within six months – Principal Judge, Family Court directed to decide the Original Suit within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of order. (UK HC) Decided on: 21.09.2024