Constitution of India, Article 14 – Regularization of service -- Discrimination -- Parity -- Delay and laches – Plea of petitioners is based on discrimination which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India -- If there is an infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India then petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. K. Thimmappa and others’s case, 2001 (2) SCC 259, relied -- Similarly situate counterparts had been appointed earlier with respect to whom parity sought, deserves to be allowed -- Respondent-Corporation will have to uniformly regularize contractual appointees after one year --  Petitioners are held entitled for regularization from the date of completion of one year contractual service after initial appointment, with all consequential benefits from the due date.

(Para 23-29)

A. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need – Residential building as commercial -- Once the appellant/ tenant himself is running a commercial activity at the spot, he cannot complaint on this ground.

(Para 6-9)

B. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Subsequent eviction petition – Bonafide need – Arrears of rent – Recurring cause of action -- In eviction petition, the ground of bonafide requirement and non-payment of rent are recurring causes and that landlord is not precluded from instituting fresh proceedings -- Merely because the earlier ejectment petitions filed in 2001 were  dismissed in 2005, cannot be ground to reject the subsequent petitions, which have been filed in March, 2010 i.e. more than 08 years from the date of filing of the earlier ejectment petitions.

(Para 14-16)

C. 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.

(Para 19, 20)

D. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need – Presumption -- It is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord about her/ his bonafide necessity -- If a landlord asserts that he requires the tenanted premises to expand the business, his need must be presumed as bonafide.

(Para 29)

E. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Bonafide need – Old age of landlady -- Simply because the landlady has grown old, cannot be a ground to reject the ejectment petition , once she has proved her bonafide necessity.

(Para 32)

F. East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15 – Bonafide need – Concurrent finding of fact – Power of Revisional court:

-- Revisional power of the High Court under Section on 15(6) of the Rent Act is not appellate power and so, the high court cannot reappreciate the evidence on record, whether oral or documentary only because it is inclined to take a different view of facts as it were a court of facts.

-- High Court can interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Rent Controller/ Appellate Authority, only if it finds that the said finding on the question of bonafide requirement is either perverse or arbitrary, or there is illegality or perversity of such a nature that it demands interference.

(Para 33-37)

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.

(Para 3-7)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3(a), 4(2), 5 (l), 6– Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366, 376 (2) (n), 376 (3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 164, 439 -- 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.

(Para 4-7)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3(a), 4(2), 5 (n), 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366, 376(3), 376 (2)(n) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 439 -- 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.

(Para 4-7)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS Case – Regular  bail -- Recovery of 3.17 Kg. of charas – Sample was not taken from each piece or each strip, 100 gram sample was randomly taken -- It cannot be said that each sample is the representative sample of the allegedly recovered quantity of the applicant -- Bail allowed. Gaunter Edwin Kircher’s case (1993) 3 SCC 145 relied.

(Para 4-9)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16 -- Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 27, Article 65 -- 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.

(Para 3, 28)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 21 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366, 376, 506 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – POCSO – Rape – Regular bail -- Petitioner is behind bars since 4.9.2022 – One is deemed to be innocent, till the time, his/her guilt is proved in accordance with law -- Guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved in accordance with law -- No reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail, for an indefinite period, especially when co-accused stands enlarged on bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 1, 22-29)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- 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.

(Para 12)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ petition – Delay and laches -- Cause of action arose in the year 1973, when the Union of India and the Defence department allegedly stopped paying rental compensation – Writ petition in the year 2006 -- A writ petition should be preferred within reasonable time -- Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 13-18)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15(5) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – 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.

(Para 6)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13, 15(5) -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – 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.

(Para 5-7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 17, 18 – 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.

(Para 5, 6)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1, 10 – 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.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1, 10 – 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.

(Para 6, 7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – 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.

(Para 1, 2)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – 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.

(Para 1-3)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 96, 151, Order 41 Rule 27 –  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.

(Para 4)

Waqf Act, 1995 (43 of 1995), Section 6, 7, 83 – Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 11 -- 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.

(Para 1, 3, 6-8)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47, Order 21 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 – 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.

(Para 2, 3)

A. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Landlord -- Tenant -- Gair marusi tenant -- Merely because appellant is recorded as ‘Gair Maurusi’ in the revenue record, does not mean that he is a tenant over the suit property – There can be no tenancy unless there is a condition of payment of rent, though the rent may be payable in cash, kind or service etc. -- Held, it is inconceivable that there can be any tenancy without the condition of payment of rent, unless there is a contract to the contrary, absolving the tenant the liability to pay rent.

(Para 14, 15)

B. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Gair marusi tenant – Trespasser -- Adverse possession -- A party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take contrary stands to suit his convenience -- When in the earlier two litigations, it was ordered by the courts that appellant could be dispossessed in due course of law, he changed the stand in next litigations taking contrary plea that he had become owner of suit property by adverse possession -- In none of the earlier litigations decided earlier, he has been held to be tenant in the suit land, though his plea of possession has been upheld with further direction that he cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law – No evidence that tenancy was ever created and as such, his possession over the suit land is nothing less than that of a stranger / trespasser.

(Para 19)

C. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 9 --  Tenant of land – Eviction -- Jurisdiction of civil court --  When the person is inducted as a tenant on payment of rent and the rent is not paid --  Civil Court will not have jurisdiction and the landlord will have to seek his remedy before the Revenue Authorities to seek ejectment of such tenant or a tenant holding over, under the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 to be read with the provisions Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act.

(Para 22)

D. Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Section 4(3)(5)(6) – Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (10 of 1953), Section 9 --  Gair marusi tenant – Suit for possession – Jurisdiction of civil court --  When the possession of person concerned on the suit land is without payment of rent, such as person is no more than a stranger or trespasser over the suit property -- In such a situation, his possession, howsoever long it may be, cannot be considered in the capacity of tenant in view of the definition of ‘landlord’, ‘tenant’ and ‘rent’ -- In this eventuality, it is only the Civil Court, which will have the jurisdiction to pass the decree of possession in favour of the landlord – Suit for possession decreed.

(Para 22, 23)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 420, 468, 471 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) – 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.

(Para 3, 14-17)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Matrimonial dispute – Financial matters -- In the matters arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the High Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC for giving an end to the criminal proceedings.

(Para 15)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47, Order 21 -- 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.

(Para 16-18)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47, Order 21 -- Execution of Decree -- Petitioner-decree holder contends that the Society was bound to allot two plots as per the compromise -- No such claim was made by the decree holder in the execution, which has filed in 2009 -- Executing court was not in seisin of the matter regarding the non-allotment of the plots as per the compromise -- No allegation on the part of the decree holder regarding the non-allotment of plots – Executing Court rejected the claim – No reason to interfere in the well-reasoned order passed by the Executing Court, revision dismissed.

(Para 19)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- 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.

(Para 3, 14-20)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) -- 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.

(Para 12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34 -- Common intention -- There cannot be a fixed timeframe for formation of common intention -- It is not essential for the perpetrators to have had prior meetings to conspire or make preparations for the crime -- Common intention to commit murder can arise even moments before the commission of the act -- Since common intention is a mental state of the perpetrators, it is inherently challenging to substantiate directly -- Instead, it can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrators immediately before, during, and after the commission of the act.

(Para 19)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 302 – Murder -- Common intention -- Appellants are related by blood, arrived at the crime scene armed with a 12 bore double-barrel gun, dangs, and lathis within 15 minutes of the initial altercation, and subsequently attacked P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, and the victims -- During this attack, A-4, the father of A-1, raged by the incident of P.W.3 slapping his adult son A-1 and the pursuant altercation, fired with his gun at P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and the victims -- Thereafter, all the appellants fled together carrying their weapons -- It is evident that the appellants acted with a common intention to kill, seeking to avenge the slapping incident.

(Para 20)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 149 -- Common intention – Common object -- Determination of common intention or common object should primarily be within the domain of the trial courts, and at the most the high courts -- It should not be the role of Supreme Court to directly adjudicate issues of common intention and common object.

(Para 21)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 216, 464 – Non-framing of charge -- Failure of justice -- No finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in an appeal, confirmation or revision, a claim of "failure of justice" has been substantiated.

-- Law is well-settled that in order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself.

(Para 24, 25)

F. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) -- Independent witness -- It is settled law that examination of independent witness is not an indispensable requisite if the testimonies of other witnesses are deemed trustworthy and reliable --  Prosecution's case cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of the absence of independent witness. 

(Para 29, 30)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 121 -- Partition of land – Value and location of land -- It is well-settled that besides the possession of the co-sharers over the portions in the joint land holding, the value and location as well as the nature of such land have also to be taken into consideration at the time of affecting the partition so that all the co-sharers get the portions of the land without any prejudice to their entitlement as per their respective shares in the total land under partition.

(Para 8)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 121 -- Partition of land – Value and location of land -- Entire portion of the subject land abutting the road allocated to the appellants – Respondent No.5 has not been given even an inch of land out of the same which, by no stretch of imagination, can be termed to be justified and equitable at all.

(Para 8)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Regularization of employee – Retrospective regularisation at par with junior -- Merely because High Court or the Supreme Court had not fixed any date for grant of benefit of regularization to the petitioners, the State Government is not absolved from its duty to grant the petitioner benefits at par with similarly situated persons -- State Cabinet has taken a decision to grant benefit of regularization to the petitioners prospectively, the same cannot be a valid reason to discriminate the petitioners.

(Para 20)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Regularization of Primary Assistant Teachers (PAT) -- Intelligible differentia – All the Incumbents under the PAT, GVU and Para Teachers Schemes formed a single class, keeping in view the object behind their appointments and treatment given to them by the State Government -- Exclusion of petitioners by not conferring upon them the benefit of regularization on completion of 8/10 years of service, as has been done in the case of GVU and Para Teachers, amounts to creation of a class without there being any intelligible differentia -- Since, the respondents have already granted such benefit to the Para Teachers w.e.f. 18.12.2014, the respondents directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with all consequential benefits from that date i.e. 18.12.2014.

(Para 21, 22)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 6A-6G, Section 11, 96, 100 – Civil suit -- Counter claim – Res-judicata -- Maintainability of one appeal -- Ld. trial Court decided Civil Suit, as well as, counter-claim, whereas, the appellant/ defendants had filed only one appeal, which had been dismissed, by the learned First Appellate Court --  Non-filing of the appeal, against the counter-claim, not only amounts to res judicata, but, also waiver and estoppel -- Second appeal is held to be not maintainable.

(Para 22-25)

Court-fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1970), Section 7 – Sale deed – Challenge to -- Ad-valorem court fee -- Neither the plaintiff is executant of the sale deed nor has sought possession -- Being a non-executant, plaintiff can avoid the sale deed and thus, is not required to affix ad valorum Court fee on the value of the property.

(Para 10)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 116, 121 -- Mode of partition – Sanad takseem/ Instrument of partition -- Challenge to – Ground of -- Since the sanctioned mode of partition was never challenged by the petitioners and had attained finality, the petitioners can question the final partition only on the ground that the same is not in consonance with mode of partition.

(Para 7.2)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 -- 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.

(Para 14-16)

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)