Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Preliminary stage of investigation -- There is no absolute rule that even if the investigation is at a preliminary stage, the Court exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot interfere.

(Para 4)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 2(1)(d), 17 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 14 -- Consumer – Commercial transaction – Maintainability of complaint -- If the machine is purchased for self-employment purposes, it cannot be categorized as “commercial purpose’ -- Petitioner/ complainant was already running a business as a commercial venture and he purchased the machine to expand his business -- Petitioner himself was not operating the machine, but he had employed workmen who were doing the job for him -- No matter how small the venture is, it cannot be called ‘self-employment’ for the purposes of the Act – Order of dismissal of complaint on the ground that he was not a ‘consumer’, upheld -- In case the petitioner moves a Civil Suit within four weeks, he would be at liberty to rely upon Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape – Promise to marry – Quashing of FIR -- Promise if any was after the first physical intercourse and even later the allegation was forceful intercourse without any consent -- Allegation of threat and coercion against the victim, to have sexual intercourse with the accused, which even as per the victim’s statement was repeated thrice in the same manner, when she willingly accompanied the accused to a hotel room -- High Court should have interfered u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C -- These proceedings cannot go on -- Proceedings quashed.

(Para 8-13)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(c), 13 – Eviction petition -- Landlord – Ownership – Requirement of -- In the rent proceedings, the primary issue which is to be decided between the parties is whether the person who has filed the eviction petition is the landlord or not -- The fact as to whether he is the owner or not is not a condition precedent for the said person to seek eviction.

(Para 6)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 – Shamilat deh -- Notice to vacate by BDPO – Challenge to -- Writ jurisdiction – Dispute relates to the question of title and possession over the panchayat land involving disputed questions of fact – Court declines to enter into merits of the matter and relegates the petitioner to approach the Collector u/s 11 of the Act of 1961.

(Para 4, 5)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 10A – Shamilat deh -- Jurisdiction of Collector/ Financial Commissioner -- Cancellation of lease by Financial Commissioner – Held, jurisdiction to rescind or cancel lease solitarily vested in the Collector of the Revenue District concerned -- Financial Commissioner or any other officer of the Government of Punjab, except the Collector concerned held no jurisdiction to cancel the leases concerned -- Impugned order passed by Financial Commissioner, set aside.

(Para 1, 2, 5-10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary injunction -- Co-owner -- Electricity in name of defendant – Right of irrigation -- One of the cosharers of the tubewell cannot deprive the right of irrigation to the other co-sharer by unauthorisedly removing the common facility for irrigating the fields.

(Para 4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 439 -- Bail application – Direction to CBI to register FIR -- High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a case based on the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and conduct investigation thereon; in a bail application – Held, there can be no such direction in a bail application -- Impugned order set aside to that extent.

(Para 1-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 143, 147, 153 (A), 295, 436, 332 -- Unlawful assembly -- Rioting – Bystander -- Appellants were residents of the same village where riots broke out, therefore their presence at the spot is natural and by itself not incriminating -- More so, because it is not the case of the prosecution that they came with arms or instruments of destruction -- In these circumstances, their presence at the spot could be that of an innocent bystander who had a right to move freely in absence of prohibitory orders -- In such a situation, to sustain their conviction, the prosecution ought to have led some reliable evidence to demonstrate that they were a part of the unlawful assembly and not just spectator -- Here no evidence has come on record to indicate that the appellants incited the mob, or they themselves acted in any manner indicative of them being a part of the unlawful assembly – Appellants’ arrest from the spot is not a guarantee of their culpability -- Mere presence of the appellants at the spot, or their arrest therefrom, was not sufficient to prove that they were a part of the unlawful assembly comprising of more than a thousand people – Appellants acquitted.

(Para 15-18)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13B – NRI landlord – Return back to India -- Eviction of tenant in the year 2010 -- 15 years have passed in this process -- Petitioners’ application for leave to defend was dismissed in the year 2016 -- Revision petition is pending for the last 9 years – Admittedly, eviction against remaining tenants possessing the ground floor of the same premises has become final and the possession has been handed over to the landlords – Section 13B of the ‘1949 Act’ does not provide that the landlord will return back to the Country before filing of the petition – Landlords had only filed petitions for claiming higher rent, that would not estop the landlords to seek eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity – Revision of tenant dismissed.

(Para 5)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 2(c), 13 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 -- Eviction of tenant – Execution of order/ decree -- ‘Landlord’ has been defined as a person, who is entitled to receive the rent -- It is not synonymous with the word ‘Owner’ -- If the tenants/ appellants have any dispute with Landlord, then they have to establish their rights in the separate suit -- At this stage, only the Executing Court is required to deliver possession in favour of the decree holder.

(Para 3)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 26 Rule 9 – Eviction petition -- Appointment of Local Commissioner -- No right vested in favour of a party to get the said commission issued and rather the same is an enabling provision that enables the Court to appoint a Commissioner if it is of the opinion that the same is required in a case.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 190 – Police report – Cognizance by Magistrate – Direction to inclusion name in charge-sheet – Permissibility of -- Court has the power to differ from the Final Form submitted by the Police and take cognizance of a crime and also against persons who may not have been sent up for trial by the Police after investigation -- In such circumstances, the Court is then required to issue summons instead of directing for inclusion of the name of the person in the charge-sheet.

(Para 3)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118 -- Interested witness -- First cousins witness -- It is settled position of law that merely because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and as such are interested witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard their testimony -- The only requirement is that the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.

(Para 9)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 300 Exception IV, 302, 304, Part 1 -- Murder -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Place of incident is near the house of accused persons -- Possibility of a quarrel taking place on account of previous enmity between the accused persons and the deceased; and in a sudden fight in the heat of the moment, the appellant along with the co-accused assaulting the deceased cannot be ruled out -- Weapons used are a stick and the blunt side of the axe, these tools are easily available in any agricultural field -- It therefore cannot be said that there was any premeditation -- Case would not fall under the ambit of Section 302 of IPC and the appellant would be entitled to benefit of Exception IV of Section 300 of IPC -- It is further to be noted that the appellant has already undergone the sentence of 6 years 10 months – Appellant sentenced to the period already undergone.

(Para 12-15)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5 – Regular Second Appeal – Condonation of delay -- State cannot be given any undue indulgence as compared to an ordinary litigant, especially in matters of limitation -- All parties, whether or not State under Article 12 of the Constitution, are required to act with due diligence and promptitude.

(Para 13)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction – Three post of Steno advertised – Four additional person appointed, including appellants  -- Termination – Non-payment of salary -- State as well as the High Courts are expected to be model litigants -- The High Court is not expected to take a hyper-technical view, when dealing with the case of payment of salary of the employees of the District Judiciary, who have actually put in eight years of service -- Respondents directed to pay the salary of the appellant and other similarly circumstances persons for the period during which they have actually worked in the District Court along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date on which the salaries ought to have been paid to them -- Appellant would also be entitled to costs quantified at Rs.1 lakh.

(Para 4.1, 12, 13-17)

Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), Section 8(1)(d) -- Third party information -- While applying for various tenders, certain information has been given by the petitioner, the same cannot be claimed by respondent No. 4 as a matter of right because of it being a third party information -- Third party information, which a particular candidate competing for a tender has submitted, cannot be sought.

(Para 6)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 17, 23 -- Life insurance claim -- Failure to Mention other Policies – Repudiation of claim – Permissibility of -- Policy in question is not a Mediclaim policy; it is a life insurance cover and the death of the deceased has taken place on account of an accident -- Failure to mention about other policies does not amount to a material fact in relation to the policy availed and consequently, the claim could not have been repudiated by the respondent company – Direction given to release all benefits under the policy along with an interest of 9% per annum from the date the amount became due till the date of its realization to the appellant.

(Para 18)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Father and the mother of the deceased were also claimants before the MACT and the mother having passed away during the interregnum itself shows that they were advanced in age and thus, the deceased, but obviously, would be presumed to have carried out the major responsibility as is done in such joint family, especially since the businesses of agriculturist, hiring/driving and milk-vending – Monthly income taken as Rs. 15,000/- -- Total compensation assessed at Rs.35,66,600 -- Rate of interest increased to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation, instead of 6% per annum.

(Para 11-15)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (11 of 1973), Section 13 -- Assessment of provisional rent -- Not only the application for assessment of rent was dismissed, the Rent Controller has further held that the provisions of the Rent Act are not applicable – Held, on an application any finding which virtually disposes off the main case cannot be sustained in law -- Matter remanded back to the Rent Controller for decision afresh on the application for assessment of the provisional rent in accordance with the law.

(Para 7, 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 23, 29, 21C, 25, 27A – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- NDPS – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was not named in the FIR and was nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused and except that no other cogent material available to the prosecution -- No recovery effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner -- No reason to deny the petitioner the concession of anticipatory bail – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 430 -- Suspension of sentence – Life imprisonment – Fixed term sentence – Consideration of -- Plea for suspension of sentence should be considered liberally if the sentence is for a fixed term and there are no other exceptional circumstances to decline -- However, if the sentence is of life imprisonment, then for the purpose of considering the plea for suspension of sentence, what should be looked into is something palpable on the basis of which, the appellate court can prima facie reach to the conclusion that there are all possible chances that the convict may get acquitted.

(Para 10)

Constitution of India, Article 225, 226 -- Power of Chief Justice – Roaster of Court – Judgment/ Order without Roster – Writ jurisdiction -- A judicial order based on consent of the parties, which is in the teeth of the Writ Rules and seeks to unsettle and even override the determination made by the Chief Justice, could not have vested jurisdiction in the appellate court to hear the pending writ petition -- As a sequitur, the Division Bench which passed the impugned order could not have assumed unto itself the jurisdiction to decide the writ petition based on the earlier order -- Chief Justice of the High Court, being the primus inter pares, has been vested with the power and authority to set the roster -- Such roster is final and binding on all the ‘Companion Justices’ of the said court -- Plainly, therefore, the impugned order are without jurisdiction -- Writ petition revived, Chief Justice of the High Court requested to assign the writ petition to an appropriate bench for its consideration and disposal.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 377, 328, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 482 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 183, 528 -- Rape -- Habitual complainant – Quashing of FIR -- Apart from her statement in the FIR and her statement u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C./ 183 of BNSS, there is no other evidence on record -- Most concerning is that the same respondent has filed nearly identical cases at least against eight other individuals (nine cases in total) -- These FIRs, lodged in different Police Stations across Delhi, involve offenses u/s 34, 328, 354, 354A, 354D, 376, 377, 506, and 509 of IPC 00 -- After lodging the FIR, the complainant has not cooperated with the investigation and has not appeared despite being served with notice -- Appellant is a retired Army officer and the author of five books -- Considering the nature of the case and the cumulative circumstances, the criminal case initiated against the appellant is nothing but an abuse of the process of law -- This is precisely the nature of case where the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (as per new act, under Section 528 B.N.S.S.) and should have quashed the proceedings -- FIR quashed.

(Para 5-9)

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (13 of 1985), Section 21 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 5, 14 – Condonation of delay in OA – Time spent in wrong Forum/ RTI information – Consideration of -- Section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable for condonation of delay -- It is a settled law that if a wrong remedy has been taken up by any litigant, the period spent for pursuing the wrong remedy can be condoned, in terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act -- O.A. field after obtaining documents under the RTI Act said to be bona fide -- Petitioner had suffered serious accident and had also subsequently remained hospitalized on account of heart ailment – Delay deserved to be condoned -- Since the order of termination is an issue before the Court, the same has to be examined on merits – Matter remitted back to Central Administrative Tribunal and directed to decide the OA afresh on merits.

(Para 9-12)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 -- Comparison of signature with photocopy of partnership deed -- Permissibility of -- Held, signatures cannot be verified from a photocopied document.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Father and younger sister as claimant -- Father and younger sister of the deceased, both not financially independent, would fall under the definition of legal representatives for the purpose of claiming the compensation.

(Para 15)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Driver without licence -- Liability of Insurance company -- Driver and the owner of the offending vehicle are liable to pay compensation, as the driver did not possess an effective driving licence -- High Court directed the Insurance Company, to first pay the compensation awarded to the appellants and then, recover the same from the driver and the owner, who are jointly and severally liable to pay the same – Court not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

(Para 16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 452 – Rape – No medical examination -- Acquittal -- Prosecutrix and her parents themselves never fully co-operated with the medical staff, thereby adversely impacting the credibility of their version of events -- Non-allowance of medical examination by an alleged rape-victim raises negative inferences against them – Prosecutrix was 19 years old at the time of the alleged occurrence – High Court has microscopically examined the entire evidence before firmly opining that the accused-respondent deserves the benefit of the doubt – Appeal against judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court, dismissed.

(Para 10-13)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 (7 of 1882), Section 2 -- Rejection of plaint -- Power of attorney – Conveyance already made -- Cancellation of attorney after 11 years -- Cause of action -- Power holder having exercised the authority conferred; to convey the properties in the name of the purchasers, the cancellation of the power of attorney will have no effect on the conveyances carried out under the valid power conferred -- Nor would it confer the person who executed the power of attorney any cause of action, by virtue of a cancellation of the power conferred by a subsequent document, to challenge the valid exercise of the power when it existed – Order of rejection of plaint passed by trial court affirmed.

(Para 8, 9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 11 Rule 14 – Production of documents – Discretionary of court -- Provision does not give an absolute right to a party to seek production of documents at any stage of the proceedings and the same is an enabling power with the Court.

(Para 4)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS – Commercial quantity – Pregnancy of wife -- Interim regular bail -- Recovery of 478 grms of heroin from pocket of petitioner -- Challan has not been presented and petitioner is inside jail since 11.10.2024 -- Wife of the petitioner is pregnant and she requires someone very close to her, who can take care of her physical and mental health, at the time of need -- Only person, in house is stated to be the grandmother of the petitioner, who herself is aged about 80 years -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on interim regular bail from 15.03.2025 to 23.5.2025.

(Para 3-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 20B – Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2022 (6 of 2022), Section 3, 10 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Dummy candidate in recruitment competitive exam -- Regular bail -- Since there must have been thousands of people who appeared for the exam, and the respondent-accused persons, for their own benefit, tried to compromise the sanctity of the exam, possibly affecting so many of those who would have put in earnest effort to appear in the exam in the hopes of securing a job – Respondents are not entitled to the benefit of bail – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment set aside -- Respondent-accused to surrender to surrender before the concerned Court in two weeks.

(Para 3, 11-14)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Challenge to reservations rules in Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability of -- Concern of the petitioner for maintaining the percentage of reservation of seats in medical specialities for the reserved category candidates could be genuine but, unless the specific cases of the candidates arise for consideration before the Court, such an issue cannot be decided in abstract -- Such a question cannot be considered in a Public Interest Litigation -- Writ petition disposed of with observation that whenever any such issue arises for consideration before any of the High Courts, the High Courts would consider the same on its individual merits, in accordance with law.

(Para 2, 3, 16-18)

Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938), Section 39(7) – Nomination by policy-holder – Payment of Insurance claim -- Duty of Insurance company -- When there is a beneficiary nominee, who is validly nominated as per Section 39(7), will be entitled to make a claim for the entire amount -- Liability of the Insurance Company is to disburse the amount to the beneficiary or collector nominee as the case may be -- Insurance Company does not get into the area of dispute and the Company washes of its hands by handing over the sum assured to the nominee. K.R. Sakthi Murugeswari’s case (MANU/TN/6034/2023) relied.

(Para 9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, 151, Order 41 Rule 27 – Additional evidence in appeal -- Application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC dismissed whereas the first appeal is pending -- Impugned order set aside and the First Appellate Court directed to consider the application for additional evidence afresh along with main appeal and at the time of deciding of the main appeal.

(Para 7, 8)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 491, 528 -- Absence from trial – Cancellation of bail – Forfeiture of bail bond -- Arrest warrant – Quashing of – Many a times, the accused can be prevented by sufficient reasons to put an appearance before the Court on a given date and, therefore, it necessarily cannot be construed as a deliberate and wilful absence -- Explanation offered for non-appearance before the trial Court is justified -- Curtailment of personal liberty is to be done in line with the procedure established by law -- Procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness – Sole purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants is to secure presence of the accused before the learned trial Court -- Petitioners have themselves come forward and have undertaken to appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date – Impugned order set aside.

(Para 7-10)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), Section 5, 5A, 22(3)(4), 36AD – Matrimonial dispute/ FIR -- Freezing of Bank account -- Maintainability of writ against Schedules Private Bank – Petitioner company deposited more than 10 crores in its current account maintained with the respondent bank -- Withdrawal of amount belonging to petitioner from its current account withheld by the respondent bank on account of its unilateral decision to freeze the petitioner’s bank account on the request of third respondent (wife) of Authorsed signatory/ Director.

-- No order passed by any competent court to freeze the petitioner’s bank account.

-- No action or order of the investigating authority in any criminal case to freeze such bank account, either.

-- No provision exists in law conferring authority upon the respondent bank to adjudicate private claims of the Director regarding their matrimonial dispute.

Respondent bank has no jurisdiction to entertain the request of the third respondent and thereby freeze petitioner’s account and deny withdrawal -- Objection of the respondents with regard to maintainability of the writ petition dismissed -- Writ petition allowed, order passed by the respondent bank quashed.

(Para 1, 25-32)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 37, 38, 39, Order 21 -- Execution of decree – Time limit of 6 months -- All the High Courts directed to call for the necessary information from their respective district judiciary as regards pendency of the execution petitions -- High Courts shall thereafter proceed to issue an administrative order or circular, directing their respective district judiciary to ensure that the execution petitions pending in various courts shall be decided and disposed of within a period of six months without fail otherwise the concerned presiding officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side.

(Para 75)

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971), Section 2(b), 12 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 2(a) -- Contempt of Court -- Agreement to sell after Status quo order – Agreement to sell and acceptance of sale consideration despite the interim orders, held to be contempt of Court -- Respondent no. 1 to 4 held guilty of civil contempt, as defined under section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Rule-2(a) of the Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -- Unconditional apology tendered at the fag end of the proceedings, rejected – Fine of Rs.2,000/- on respondent no. 1 to 4 / Senior citizens each and costs of Rs.1,00,000/- as per Rule 21 of Contempt of Court (Gujarat High Court) Rules, 1984 imposed -- Agreement to sell held to be nonest and void ab initio, the same quashed and set aside.

(Para 17, 18, 28, 33, 34)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2001, Rule 24(4) -- Scuffle between judicial officers -- Discharge of Probationer Judicial Officers – Rule of natural justice -- Order of discharge of services of petitioners as probationer are clearly stigmatic which required inquiry prior to discharge from service -- Since the order of discharge of service of petitioners is punitive in nature, the maxim of Audi alterm partem was required to be followed prior to their discharge.

(Para 7, 94)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 415, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheating – Quashing of FIR -- Non-performance of agreement to sell -- Mere non-performance of an Agreement to Sell by itself does not amount to cheating and breach of trust -- Adequate remedy of filing a Civil Suit for relief of specific performance of a contract which complainant has already availed and the suit is still pending -- FIR only appears to be an arm-twisting mechanism to pressurise the appellants to execute the Sale Deed or converted into a criminal wrong – Amount paid towards consideration cannot be said to have been entrusted -- Merely because the appellants are refusing to register the sale, it does not amount to misappropriation of the advance payment – Appeal allowed, FIR quashed.

(Para 6, 12, 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 448, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal intimidation – House trespass – Quashing of FIR -- Allegations in the FIR are totally absurd -- When complainant has not filed any suit, there is no question of appellants threatening him of dire consequences if he does not withdraw the suit – Complainant and his relatives are in the habit of filing false and malicious cases against the appellants only on account of long-standing civil dispute pending between them – Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants would be nothing else but an abuse of the process of law – Chargesheet and summoning order quashed and set aside.

(Para 16, 19, 24, 25)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 42, 42A – POCSO – Greater punishment -- Section 42A of POSCO Act deals with the procedural aspects and gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the POCSO Act over any other law for the time being in force where, the two acts are inconsistent with each other -- Section 42A of POSCO Act, by no stretch of imagination, can be interpreted so as to override the scope and ambit of enabling provision, i.e., Section 42 of POCSO Act.

(Para 22)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) – POCSO -- Rape -- Imprisonment for remainder of person’s natural life -- It is discretion to award punishment for a term sentence of minimum 10 years or of imprisonment for life -- There is no mandate of law that under these provisions, the convict must be awarded life imprisonment -- For the offences punishable u/s 376(2)(f) and 376(2) (i) of IPC, the accused sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life without the stipulation that the life term will enure till the natural life of the appellant and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and in default, to further undergo imprisonment of two years -- Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(Para 25-31)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7(2), 13(1)(d), 20 – Demand and acceptance – Presumption -- Prosecution failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt, the demand of bribe and its acceptance, in a trap laid by the trap team of the ACB -- In that circumstance there is no question of a presumption u/s 20 arising in the case --  Conviction and sentence set aside.

(Para 16)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 32 – Execution of decree – Breach of injunction -- Imprisonment of a judgment-debtor – Attachment of property -- Once it is proved that J.D. had wilfully and with impunity disobeyed an order of injunction, the court owes it to itself to make the judgment-debtor realise that it does not pay to defy a decree of a court -- Court’s power under Order 21, Rule 32 is no more than a procedural aid to the harried decree-holder -- But the court has to record a finding that the judgment-debtor wilfully disobeyed or failed to comply with the decree in spite of opportunity afforded to him -- Absence of such finding is a serious infirmity vitiating the order.

(Para 44, 45)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 32 – Execution of decree – Continuous breach of injunction – Res-judicata --  Each breach of injunction is independent and actionable in law making the judgment-debtor answerable -- Where there are successive breaches of decree, the judgment-debtor can be dealt with on every such breach and the doctrine of res judicata has no application.

(Para 46)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 32 – Execution of decree – Detention of Judgment debtor – Onus to prove of  willful disobedience -- Onus of placing materials before the executing Court for enabling it to record a finding that the person against whom the order of detention is sought, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree for injunction, but has wilfully disobeyed it, lies on the person seeking such order of detention, lest the person seeking deprivation of the liberty of another cannot do so without fully satisfying the Court about its need.

(Para 50)

D. Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 32 – Detention of Judgment debtor – Revisional jurisdiction -- High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution must ascertain before interfering with any order passed by a subordinate court or tribunal whether the same suffers from any jurisdictional error -- Court should be guided by its conscience, more particularly keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and not strictly go by the term “jurisdictional error” -- It is very easy for the High Court to say that there is no jurisdictional error and, therefore, no interference is warranted but before saying so, the High Court should be mindful of the consequences that would follow like arrest, detention in civil prison and attachment of property.

(Para 53)

E. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21 Rule 32 – Execution of decree – Detention of Judgment debtor – Attachment of property -- Opportunity of hearing -- Executing court should have been a little more considerate while declining even to take the objections on record and give one opportunity of hearing to the appellants before passing the order of arrest, detention in a civil prison and attachment of the property -- This aspect overlooked even by the High Court while affirming the order passed by the executing court -- Supervisory jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is meant to take care of such situations -- Impugned orders set aside.

(Para 59, 60)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304A, 304, Part II – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 – Discharge -- Accidental death – Causing death by negligence -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Allegations that accused persons had not taken proper care and caution by providing safety shoes, safety belt etc. -- Two deceased employees were undertaking the work of decoration of the front side of the shop -- As part of the said work, they were working on the sign board which was approximately at a height of 12 feet from the ground level -- While working on the sign board, they were struck by electricity as a result of which they got electrocuted and fell down resulting in multiple injuries leading to their death -- It was purely accidental -- On these basic facts, no prima facie case can be said to be made out against the appellants for committing an offence u/s 304A IPC, not to speak of Section 304 Part II IPC – Discharge application allowed.

(Para 13-18)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 – Discharge – Nature of -- At the stage of discharge, court is only required to consider as to whether there are sufficient materials which can justify launch of a criminal trial against the accused -- By its very nature, a discharge is at a higher pedestal than an acquittal -- Acquittal is at the end of the trial process, may be for a technicality or on benefit of doubt or the prosecution could not prove the charge against the accused; but when an accused is discharged, it means that there are no materials to justify launch of a criminal trial against the accused -- Once he is discharged, he is no longer an accused.

(Para 16)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction -- Judgment reserved -- Vacation of stay order – Requirement of law -- Interim relief was in operation for two and a half years -- While reserving the order, fairness required that the interim relief should have been continued for a reasonable time to enable the appellant to challenge the order vacating stay – Direction given that interim order shall continue to operate till the order/judgment in the writ petition is pronounced -- If the writ petition is dismissed, the High Court will extend the interim relief for a reasonable time to enable the appellant to challenge the final order.

(Para 3, 4)

Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (7 of 2014), Section 1(3) – Central Law – Presumption of implementation by State -- High Court observed that as the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 is a central Act, there is a presumption in law that it will be implemented in its true letter and spirit by the State Government – Held, no such presumption exists -- High Court ought to have dealt with the prayers in the writ petition on merits – Writ petition restored.

(Para 4-6)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Rape – Injury to prosecutrix – Requirement of law -- Merely because in the medical evidence, there are no major injury marks, this cannot a be a reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of the prosecutrix -- It is not necessary that in each and every case where rape is alleged there has to be an injury to the private parts of the victim and it depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case -- Absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution.

(Para 11)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Rape – Evidence of prosecutrix – Value of -- Evidence of a prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value as that of an injured witness and conviction can be made on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.

(Para 13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003) – Direction to register HECIR -- High Court had no reason to pass a drastic order of directing the Enforcement Directorate to register an ECIR only because the High Court prima facie came to a conclusion that a predicate offence exists -- ECIR registered on the basis of the impugned judgment quashed and set aside – Left open for Enforcement Directorate to take a call on the question of initiating proceedings under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.

(Para 5)