A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Quashing of FIR/ Complaint – Duty of High Court -- Beyond holding that there are specific allegations, there is no other analysis by High Court -- Duty of the High Court, when its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked on the ground that the Complaint/ FIR is manifestly frivolous, vexatious or instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, to examine the allegations with care and caution.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 – 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.

(Para 9, 18)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 – Dowry case -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Husband not accused in criminal case -- Allegations are vague, lacking in basic details -- The essence of the complaint is in the alleged threat to deprive the husband any share in the property with respect to which the husband has already filed the suit for declaration – In DV complaint identical allegations were examined in detail, subjected to strict scrutiny, and rejected as being false and untenable – The case is instance of abuse of criminal process and it would not be fair and just to subject the appellants to the entire criminal law process – FIR and charge-sheet quashed.

(Para 9-18)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Quashing of FIR – Charge-sheet filed -- There is no prohibition against quashing of the criminal proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed.

(Para 16)

A. Compensation to contractor -- Once, the employer was held to be responsible for not providing hinderance free site to the contractor for execution of work, the award of loss or profit @ 13% of the amount of balance work cannot be said to be unreasonable.

(Para 17)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34, 37 – Arbitration award – Interference in – Scope of -- Record reveals that the parties have been afforded fullest opportunity to represent their respective cases by the Arbitrator -- The impugned award contains detailed reasons based on analyses of the material on record -- Scope of interference with arbitral award in proceedings u/s 34 of the Act is limited -- Patent illegality should emerge on the face of the award itself -- It is impermissible for the court to sit in appeal or review over the findings recorded by the arbitral tribunal.

(Para 11-18)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – 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.

(Para 24-29)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 158(2) -- Jurisdiction of civil court -- Suit for mandatory Injunction to nullify the breaking up of original Khewat into three Khewat and restore the original Khewat – Prayer essentially attracts the provisions of Section 158(2)(vi) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 – Jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred -- It is cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in a manner prescribed and not in any other way -- Learned first appellate Court was justified in nonsuiting the plaintiff on the issue of maintainability of the suit, being barred under the provisions of the Act.

(Para 12)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 (d) -- 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.

(Para 1, 4-6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Order 21, Section 11 -- Rejection of plaint -- Decree for specific performance -- Maintainability of independent suit by person claiming to be in possession – Limitation -- If the Plaintiff claim to be in possession of the suit land, she could have filed the objections under Order 21 CPC before the Executing Court in the execution filed by the decree holder -- In fact, plaintiff filed the objections before the Executing Court and the same were dismissed by the Executing Court – Sale deed was executed in September, 1995, whereas the suit filed for seeking declaration and mandatory injunction in July, 2014 -- Plaint is liable to be rejected on account of concealment of material facts about previous litigation and resjudicata and bar of limitation -- Independent suit was not maintainable in view of Order 21 CPC -- Order of Trial Court rejecting the paint restored.

(Para 29, 38-41)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(a), 26, 27, 21B -- 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.

(Para 1-5)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15(c) – Appointment of Lambardar -- Service to nation – Availability in village -- Respondent No.4/ appointed candidate earlier had worked for 16 years as Lambardar and was a retired officer from CRPF and sufficiently educated upto 10th standard and had served the nation and he had taken part in various wars/operations and also a holder of prestigious President Medal -- Service rendered to the State is an important aspect -- Appellant is working in the Forest Department and, therefore, cannot give as much time to the villagers – Appointment of respondent no. 4, upheld.

(Para 4, 5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 306 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113A – Abetment to suicide – Presumption – Acquittal -- Marriage on 14.11.2011 – Suicide on 11.05.2012 -- Accused went to Assam in the month of April, 2012 for joining his duty -- Deceased had died while she was in her parents’ house and at that time the accused was in Assam -- General allegations of harassment, no independent witness to prove that any demand of dowry was made by the accused in their presence -- No evidence led by prosecution that there was abetment of such grave nature which was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide -- Suicidal death may be the deceased's own act, being of hyper sensitive nature, for which, the husband cannot be held guilty -- Acquittal order, upheld.

(Para 2(a), 18, 36-39)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 190, 203 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Summon of accused -- Dropping of proceedings -- Once the Magistrate takes the cognizance and issues the process against the accused, then the Magistrate cannot put the clock back and drop the proceedings – Revisional Court was not right in returning the finding that the trial court had wrongly dismissed the application for dropping of the proceedings filed by the respondent/ accused.

(Para 12)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint – Account frozen -- Whether the complaint for dishonour of cheque due to the reason ‘account frozen’ is maintainable under section 138 of the Act? -- Complaint u/s 138 of the Act is maintainable even if the cheque is dishonoured due to reason ‘Account frozen’.

(Para 13, 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 304 Part-I – 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.

(Para 3, 15-18)

A. Expert evidence – Conviction -- Without independent and reliable corroboration, the opinion of the handwriting experts cannot be solely relied upon to base the conviction.

(Para 13)

B. Passports Act, 1967 (15 of 1967), Section 12(2) – Facilitating second passport – Acquittal -- Abetment – Burden of proof -- Burden is cast on the prosecution to prove that the accused had knowingly furnished false information or supressing known material information with the intent of securing a passport or travel document to a person and thereby had abetted in the commission of offence punishable under Section 12(1) and thereby punishable under Section 12(2) of the Passports Act – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellants acquitted.

(Para 2, 14-16)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- 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.

(Para 7)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956), Section 8 -- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 9 -- 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.

(Para 9, 10)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 -- 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.

(Para 7-9)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 18 – Interim maintenance to wife – Challenge to -- In the affidavit of assets and liabilities, the petitioner claimed his monthly pension as Rs.32,000/- -- Respondent placed on record, injunction order reflecting him a beneficiary in respect of the land measuring 17-14-08 bighas, which he claimed (therein) to be in his ownership and joint possession -- It was clearly evident that the petitioner had not revealed the details of his immovable properties -- Respondent is aged more than 70 years -- Award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month cannot be said to be at the higher side -- No interference is called for.

(Para 4, 5)

Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (4 of 1994), Section 131(4), 146 – Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997, Rule 143, 148 -- Removal of Pradhan of Panchayat – Bye-election – Statutory remedies -- Revision petition pending adjudication before the Secretary (Panchayati Raj) -- In case, the post of Pradhan Gram Panchayat is allowed to be filled-up by holding Bye-election, right to hold the post of Pradhan, in case she eventually succeeds in her revision petition, would be adversely affected -- Decision taken by the State Election Commission to withdraw the Election Notice in respect of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat does not call for any interference.

(Para 4)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – 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.

(Para 2-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 376D, 363, 366A, 120B -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 5, 6 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – POCSO -- 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.

(Para 3, 5, 6)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 311 -- Additional evidence/ witness -- Summoning u/s 311 of Cr.P.C. – Object of – There may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side -- Determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case -- The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and in this section, the significant expression that occurs is "at any stage of any inquiry or trial or other proceeding under this Code".

(Para 12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 311 – Re-examination of evidence/ witness -- In the extract of Parivar Register, Ext. PW-10/B, the date of birth of the child victim “N” has been mentioned as 20.01.2006 and the date of birth of her eldest sister “R” has been mentioned as 10.12.1998 -- However, in Birth Certificate, Ext. PW-10/C, the name of child victim has wrongly been mentioned as “R”, who is the eldest sister of the child victim “N”, but her date of birth has been mentioned as 20.01.2006 -- Prima facie it appears that birth certificate, Ext. PW-10/C has been issued contrary to the record -- In order to clear the ambiguity and also to arrive at the just decision of the case, evidence of then Secretary, Gram Panchayat, is essential for just decision of the case and it cannot be said to amount to filling up of the lacuna or the abuse of process of law.

(Para 14)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 173, 311 -- Additional evidence – Examination of witness not cited in challan -- Although the name of the witness proposed to be examined, has not been cited by the prosecution in the chargesheet, however, in order to clear the ambiguity and that there may not be failure of justice on account of some mistake in bringing the valuable evidence on record and also to arrive at just decision of the case, his evidence is essential to ascertain the age of the child victim -- Hence, the application filed by the State/prosecution allowed.

(Para 16)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- 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.

(Para 3-6)

Constitution of India, Article 227 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 21B – 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.

(Para 2-4)

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- POCSO – Victim/ Child witness -- There is no rule or practice that in every case the evidence of such witness be corroborated before a conviction can be allowed to stand -- However as a rule of prudence, the court always finds it desirable to have the corroboration to such evidence from other dependable evidence on record -- It is not the law that if a witness is a child, his/her evidence shall be rejected, even if it is found reliable -- The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because he/she is susceptible to tutoring.

(Para 23)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- POCSO – Victim/ Child witness -- Incident taken place on 13.10.2014 whereas the FIR was lodged on 05.12.2014 -- Delay in lodging the FIR could not be explained by the prosecution which creates a serious doubt about the case of the prosecution -- Since the evidence of the parents of the victim has been discredited by the defence in their cross- examination and there is no corroboration to the evidence of the child victim (PW12), therefore, it would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of the child victim to convict the appellants.

(Para 28)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 -- POCSO – Medical evidence – Acquittal -- Doctor had given the opinion that the possibility of sexual assault could not be ruled-out, but on that day the victim was not produced before her -- As per the FSL report, no blood and semen were detected on the shirt, pajama/ slacks, underwear, brassiere, vests, perineal swab and vaginal swab of the victim --  As there is no medical evidence on record to support the theory of the prosecution that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant, it becomes difficult to uphold the conviction granted by the trial Court.

(Para 30)

D. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 29 – POCSO – Presumption – Rebuttal of presumption -- It cannot be countenanced that the presumption u/s 29 of the POCSO Act is absolute -- Unless the prosecution is able to prove foundational facts in the context of the allegations made against the accused under the POCSO Act, the presumption u/s 29 of the said Act would not operate against the accused -- Statutory presumption u/s 29 of the POCSO Act must be understood and tested on the anvil of the golden thread which runs through web of our criminal jurisprudence system that an accused is presumed to be innocent till the guilt is conclusively established beyond reasonable doubt.

(Para 33-35)

E. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(xii) &3(2)(v) – Offence under SC/ST Act -- Offence u/s 3(1) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, would be attracted only if the feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will are promoted or attempted to be promoted against members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes as a class and not on criticizing an individual member -- An offence u/s 3(1) is not established merely on the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste, unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of the scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste.

(Para 37, 38)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Petitioner is younger in age; is more educated than respondent No.4 and her name was recommended by the SDM – Ld Collector’s appointed petitioner as Lambardar and order was further upheld by the learned Divisional Commissioner, however the Financial Commissioner set aside both orders and appointed respondent no.4 as Lambardar.

-- In the State of Punjab, age of a candidate is a relevant factor.

-- Respondent No. 4 owns more land however the petitioner has about 5 Kanals of land, which is sufficient to be taken into consideration for the purpose of security of revenue, collected by the Lambardar.

-- Petitioner is a well-educated lady having done M.A. B.Ed. and also holds an I.T. diploma.

Order passed by learned Financial Commissioner is unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside.

(Para 7-10)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Appointed candidate/ respondent No. 4 is younger in age and more educated than the petitioner. Moreover, the name of respondent No. 4 was recommended by Tehsildar, Moga and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Moga.

-- With regard to the appointment of a Lambardar in the State of Punjab, age of a candidate is a relevant factor.

-- as far as recommendations by the lower Revenue Officer is concerned, although, the Collector is not bound by the recommendation made by the Revenue Authorities in favour of a candidate; however, due consideration is to be accorded to such recommendations.

-- As far as holding of land is concerned, same is taken into consideration only for the purpose of security towards government revenue collected by the Lambardar. Respondent No. 4 has about 8 kanal of land, which is sufficient to be taken into consideration for the purpose of security of revenue, collected by the Lambardar. Moreover, land revenue stood abolished in both the State of Punjab and Haryana, long back, thus owning land by the candidates for the post of Lambardar would not be of much significance any further.

Ld. Financial Commissioner has rightly appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar, there is no scope for any interference in the impugned order.

(Para 9-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 39, 192, 207, 177, 179, 187, 196 -- Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 2001, Section 22, 28 (i) – Cognizance against Post / Non-juridical person – Permissibility of -- Summons in a criminal case to face trial cannot be issued against positions or post as a post is not juridical person – Ld. CJM issued summons against DGM Sail, M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines more so when such post undisputedly does not even exist -- Taking cognizance by not naming any person who was responsible for the alleged criminal act is certainly not sustainable in law – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 6, 7)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 11, 13(1A)(i) – Divorce -- Judicial separation -- If no cohabitation arises within the statutory period, it becomes open to the affected party to apply for dissolution of marriage for reason of no cohabitation arising within the prescribed statutory period -- Decree granted by the learned trial court for reason of matrimonial relationship having not revived within the statutory period of one year from the date of decree of judicial separation granted is justified.

(Para 1, 6, 7)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Divorce – Desertion -- Merely because the parties may have remained separated for reason of their separate jobs with one working at Jhansi and the other at Auraiya, the fact occurrence of desertion may never be sustained on the strength of such vocational/ employment compulsion faced by the parties.

(Para 6)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating -- For attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses: (i) the deception of any person; (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and (iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement.

(Para 14)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Fleeing away from marriage -- Cheating -- Quashing of FIR -- A hapless young woman who went along with her parents’ decision to marry  but at the last minute developed cold feet to enter a charade of a marriage – It cannot be construed to as ‘cheating’ as an offence under the IPC nor can it foist a prosecution on her -- Decision to remain silent can at best be injudicious but not dishonest -- FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence of ‘cheating’ – At best, offences under Sections 417, 418 and 500 of the IPC can be said to have been made out against the Applicants -- Said three Sections are non-cognizable in nature -- FIR quashed, with liberty to initiate appropriate action as may be permissible under the law in respect of the said offences i.e., Sections 417, 418 and 500 of the IPC so advised and if he so desires.

(Para 15-17.1)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 294, 114, 34 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Obscene act – Abettor – Employee/ Waiter of Bar -- Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Petitioner in the present case was a mere employee of the owner of Bar and he is found to be discharging his duty of serving the customers food and drink as per his employment profile -- No offense made out qua the Petitioner -- Petition allowed.

(Para 1, 8-11.1)

Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (16 of 2021), Section 21, 38(1) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 9 -- Rent laws -- Suit for injunction by tenant against landlord – Maintainability of -- Section 21 does not contain any provision enabling a tenant to file an application for protection against apprehended eviction otherwise than in accordance with the law -- Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain suits for injunction filed by tenants against their landlords, is not barred -- Civil Court continues to have jurisdiction to entertain the suits for injunction even after enactment of the Act of 2021.

(Para 9, 10)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 44 -- Co-sharer – Sale of whole property by one of co-sharer – Permissibility of -- Said sale deed may be a valid document to the extent of the share of Vendor in the property and buyer/ appellant is free to take remedies to claim appropriate relief either by suit of partition or by suit of compensation and damages against his Vendor.

(Para 21)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11D – Shamilat deh – Ownership dispute – Framing of issues -- Summary procedure – Sustainability of -- Statutory authorities in a most summary manner declined the espoused declaratory decree – No issue struck on the contentious pleadings -- It was imperative for the authorities concerned, to formulate issues for the relevant evidence adducing onus becoming cast upon the litigants concerned -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside, matter remanded back to Collector.

(Para 8-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 195 (1) (a) (i), 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Proclaimed person – FIR u/s 174A of IPC – Sustainability of -- No complaint by the Court which had passed order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person -- Requisite application of mind by the Court by invoking criminal liability of the petitioner for offence u/s 174-A of IPC was apparently lacking order forming the basis of FIR -- FIR u/s 174-A of IPC quashed.

(Para 9, 10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 71, 87, 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Closing of evidence – Remanding back of case for re-trial -- Trial Court acquitted the accused as material witnesses did not appear for their cross-examination and thus, their deposition could not be read in evidence -- Trial Court without resorting to the coercive method for summoning of witnesses, closed the evidence of the prosecution -- Trial Court would proceed with the trial with the examination of the witnesses afresh as per the directions given by learned Appellate Court in the impugned order -- Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451, 482 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 20, 29, 60 -- NDPS Case – Superdari of vehicle -- Confiscation of vehicle – Ground of -- Release of vehicle cannot be denied to the applicant on the ground that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated; rather a duty has been cast upon the Court to immediately release the vehicle to the rightful owner until the question of confiscation of the vehicle is decided by the Competent Court -- Pendency of the confiscation proceedings has nothing to do with the release of the vehicle -- Subject to the furnishing of sapurdari bond in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, vehicle ordered to be released.

(Para 8-14)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Cancellation of tender – Defaulter/ Blacklisted was not ground for cancellation -- It being so, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to contest the claim of the petitioner by terming him as black listed, when such ground was not the reason for cancellation of tender -- Even otherwise, the respondents have not been able to substantiate their plea that the petitioner had been black listed – Communication did not mention any reason adverse to the petitioner – Writ petition allowed, period for which the bids were invited has already elapsed – Respondent burdened with costs of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) to be paid to the petitioner for compensating him for the loss caused to him without justifiable reason.

(Para 10-13)

Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (29 of 1974), Section 20(3), 55(4)(6) – Constitution of India, Section 226, 227 -- Nakka from the watercourse – Finality of order – Once the matter regarding provisioning of Nakka to the land of respondent No. 3 and/or father of respondent No. 3 was considered and decided by the Superintending Canal Officer and the said order having attained finality, it would be just and expedient not to permit the same issue being agitated again -- Superintending Canal Officer by directly entertaining application of respondent No. 3 and by passing the impugned order has unsettled the settled position, which has not only prevented the finality of decision that has been reached at, but has conveyed a wrong message that a litigant may go on filing applications for a relief claimed and even if the same is denied, it could be granted at some subsequent stage -- This is clearly against public policy and administration of justice -- Civil writ petition allowed and the impugned orders set aside.

(Para 11)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 118, 121 -- Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (1 of 1913), Section 3(1) (2) and (3), 8, 15, 16 -- Pre-emption decree – Partition of land – Naksha bey – Naksha jeem -- Severance of co-sharer status -- Prior to the passing of the judgment and decree by the trial Court not only the 'naksha bey' had been sanctioned but even the 'naksha jeem' had been prepared and thus, on the date of the judgment and decree, there was severance of the relationship of co-sharers between the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 and thus, the plaintiffs had no right of pre-emption on the date of the passing of the judgment by the trial Court.

(Para 18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 323, 324, 341, 148, 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Attempt to murder – Unlawful assembly – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was not armed with any weapon and no injury has been attributed to him -- At the most, he was a member of unlawful assembly and other members of the said assembly had caused injuries to the complainant and his cousin brother -- No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner – Custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose – Anticipatory bail allowed.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 12(5) – Appointment of Arbitrator – Waiver to object ineligibility -- A party can waive its right to object to the ineligibility of an Arbitrator but the same is subject to two conditions -- First, that the waiver is required to be by and done by an express agreement in writing; and second, that such agreement is entered into after the disputes have arisen -- Unless both the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, there can be no waiver of the ineligibility of an arbitrator.

(Para 7)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 12(5) – Appointment of Arbitrator – Waiver to object ineligibility -- Failure, if any, on the part of the respondent to object to the unilateral appointment of the sole arbitrator, cannot be construed as waiver of his right under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.

(Para 9)

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 12(5) – Award by Arbitrator -- Ineligibility of Arbitrator – Effect of --  Award rendered by an arbitrator who is ineligible to be appointed as such cannot be enforced -- A person who is ineligible to act an Arbitrator, lacks the inherent jurisdiction to render an Arbitral Award -- It is trite law that a decision, by any authority, which lacks inherent jurisdiction to make such a decision, cannot be considered as valid -- Impugned award cannot be enforced.

(Para 10-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 319 – Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. on the same day of judgment for other accused – Quashing of -- Order of conviction for some accused and acquittal for other accused passed in the first half of the day -- In the second half, the Court first passed an order for sentencing of the persons who were convicted and only thereafter passed an order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning the appellant – If a summoning order is passed, either after the order of acquittal or imposing of sentence in the conviction, the same may not be sustainable -- Appeal allowed, summoning of appellant u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. quashed and set aside. Judgment by Constitutional Bench in Sukhpal Singh Khaira’s case (2023) 1 SCC 289 : 2022 INSC 1252 = (2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17296 relied.

(Para 14-16)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Less land holding – Effect of -- Petitioner owns more land than appointed candidate/ respondent No. 4 -- Respondent No. 4 has 10 Kanals 16 Marlas of land, which is sufficient to be taken into consideration for the purpose of security of revenue, collected by the Lambardar -- No scope for any interference.

(Para 1, 8.2, 9)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15, 20 – Punjab Land Administration Manual, Para 307 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Illiterate Candidate – Educated candidate – Preference of -- "Lambardari Rules" do not prescribe any minimum educational qualification for appointment of a Lambardar -- However, considering the duties to be performed by the Lambardar, as envisaged under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules; it would be in the fitness of things to prefer an educated person.

(Para 8.6-8.8)

C. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar –Panch/ Sarpanch – Candidature of -- Being a Sarpanch or Member Panchayat reflects upon the popularity of a particular candidate in the village and is considered as a merit and not as a de-merit.

(Para 8.9)

D. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Appointment of Lambardar – Acquittal in criminal case -- Petitioner had criminal case, although he has been acquitted -- If a person with clean antecedents has been preferred, no fault can be found with the same.

(Para 8.10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint -- Petitioner initially filed a suit for mandatory injunction, however, reserved her right to seek recovery of the amount through separate legal proceedings -- Subsequently, the petitioner sought amendment of the plaint -- Foundational facts for recovery of amount have already established in the plaint, therefore, the reasoning adopted by the learned trial Court that amendment would change the nature of the suit, is untenable – Order of the trial Court set aside and the application for amendment allowed.

(Para 9, 10)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22A(B), 22C – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 6 -- Lease of the Gram Panchayat land – Public Utility Service – Maintainability of proceedings before Permanent Lok Adalat -- Lease of the Gram Panchayat land to any bidder is not a part of the Public Utility Services defined under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 -- Proceedings at the first instance could not have been maintainable before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

(Para 5, 6)

Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (31 of 1973), Section 5 – East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 20, 21 -- Eviction of unauthorised person – Right under consolidation – Ground of -- Final authority came to the conclusion that petitioner had encroached upon the land in dispute, auction whereof had taken place on 10.05.1993 -- Question of entitlement, as such, could not be raised and which is now contended on the strength of consolidation proceedings.

(Para 5)

Haryana Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50 of 1948), Section 23 -- Possession of new holding -- Petitioners continued in possession of the old khasra numbers and the effect to the consolidation proceedings has not been given, though revenue record may have been corrected -- Writ petition disposed to give effect to the consolidation proceedings qua the petitioners by way of handing over the physical possession of the land to which they are entitled.

(Para 3, 4)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887) , Section 44 – Haryana Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7 -- Jamabandi entries – Possession – Presumption -- Possession of plaintiffs-respondent Nos.4 to 7 over the property duly established on record through Jamabandi entries relating to the year 1971-72 till 2006-07 -- Though the land in question is recorded to be owned by the appellant-Gram Panchayat, however, it is in long settled physical possession of the plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 4 to 7, who are cultivating the same -- In terms of Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, presumption of truth is attached to the entries of possession made in the revenue record in the shape of Jamabandies -- No fault could be found with the reasoning, whereby the appellant-Gram Panchayat was restrained from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 4 to 7, except in due course of law.

(Para 9, 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304B, 306 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113B – Dowry death -- Suicide with in seven years of marriage -- Deceased faced cruelty and harassment at the hands of her husband which compelled her to commit suicide -- However, witnesses did not state that such cruelty and harassment was in connection with the demand for dowry -- With respect to the demand for dowry, witnesses have just made some general statements -- It has not been proved by the prosecution that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry -- Trial court erred in raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, even though the demand for dowry was not established.

-- A case of abetment of suicide u/s 306 of IPC and cruelty u/s 498A of IPC made out against the husband, although the offence u/s 304B is not made out and consequently, conviction u/s 304B of IPC set aside – Appellant/ husband convicted u/s 306 and 498A of IPC, sentenced to three years of R.I. and a fine of Rs. 25000/- on each count -- Both the sentences ordered to run concurrently.

(Para 4-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 52A -- NDPS case -- Second sample to FSL – Permissibility of -- As per the FSL report, nothing to indicate, any damage to the seals or that the sample was in a damaged condition -- Merely because the presence of Codeine is not mentioned in the FSL report in the sample of Rexcof would not amount to compelling circumstances under which the second sample was required to be sent for reanalyses to CFSL, Chandigarh – Application of prosecution for re-testing dismissed by Ld. Trial Court, upheld.

(Para 1, 12, 13)