A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 18(1)(3) – CCL/ Child in conflict with law – Assessment of -- Consequences of the offence – Capacity to understand -- Even if the child had the mental capacity to commit the alleged offence, then too it would not be construed that he automatically had the capacity to understand the consequence of his act -- It is clearly spelt out by the Probation Officer in the Social Investigation Report that, the petitioner did not possess the capacity to understand the consequence of the alleged offence -- J.J.B. ought to have, instead of exercising the power under Section 18(3) of the Act of 2015, resorted to the provisions of Section 18(1), the prime object whereof is to ensure the rehabilitation and reintegration of the C.C.L. into the society – Case remanded to the J.J.B.

(Para 34-36, 44)

B. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 3, 8(3), 18(1)(3) – CCL/ Child in conflict with law – Assessment of – CCL/ Parents/ guardians as party – Supply of medical report and social investigation report -- Requirement of -- C.C.L. and his parent or guardian were never made to participate at any stage of the process -- Medical report and social investigation report were also not provided to them well before in time, rather only five minutes’ time was afforded to peruse the reports before addressing arguments -- J.J.B. ought to have provided the documents/ reports to the C.C.L.’s parent/counsel well before in time, thereby enabling the latter to make proper assistance – Matter remanded back to JJB.

(Para 42, 44)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11(d) -- Rejection of plaint – Limitation – Ground of -- Where it is glaring from the plaint averments that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, the Courts should not be hesitant in granting the relief and drive the parties back to the trial Court.

(Para 26)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 309 – 1999 policy instructions issued by the Government of Haryana -- Compassionate appointment – Right of -- Said right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness --  Three years from the date of death of the employee for putting forth a claim by a dependant, which, includes attainment of majority cannot be said to be in any case unjustified or illogical, especially when compassionate appointment is not a vested right -- Appellant attained majority 11 years after the unfortunate death of his father -- Claim rightly rejected by the respondent State.

(Para 15, 16)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Equality – Conferred some rights upon others, wrongfully -- Effect of -- No direction can be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable -- Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea -- The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again -- Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification.

(Para 11)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Delayed FIR -- Merely because the FIR has been delayed a claim cannot be rejected.

(Para 2)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Delayed FIR -- All the available evidences points out towards a skid and fall and not a motor accident -- Delayed FIR also, require a relevance -- Even the police in the FIR also came to the conclusion that there was no motor accident and had filed a closure report – Award set aside.

(Para 2, 3)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 37, 52A, 54 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail – Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act -- Granting bail to the accused merely on the ground that the compliance of Section 52A was not done within reasonable time, is highly erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside – Matter remanded back to High Court.

(Para 39, 40)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 52A, 54 – NDPS -- Procedural irregularity – Effect of -- Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail -- The Court will have to consider other circumstances and the other primary evidence collected during the course of investigation, as also the statutory presumption permissible u/s 54 of the NDPS Act.

(Para 39 (III)-(vi))

A. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Coparcener property -- By definition, an ancestral property is a coparcenary property, where "coparceners" are legal heirs with an inherent interest in the property from birth -- Such properties remain undivided within joint families, with legal heirs enjoying their shares.

(Para 16)

B. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 -- Coparcener property -- Family settlement – Effect of -- Suit property could not have been held to be an ancestral property, as the same was received by the erstwhile owner by way of a family settlement, wherein, the two brothers divided two equally measuring plots between themselves -- Hence, the property could not have been said to be delved on the father by virtue of him being a coparcener in that property.

(Para 19)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 -- Regular Second Appeal – Scope of -- Section 100 of the CPC confers a limited jurisdiction on the High Court to deal only with any legal error apparent on the face of the record -- Since there arises no substantial question of law to be adjudicated, the appeal dismissed.

(Para 20, 21)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 22 Rule 5 – Legal heirs – Summary enquiry – Requirements of -- Where there is dispute in regards to legal heirs of deceased plaintiff or defendant the trial court should adopt summary inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code as to who is the legal heir from the rival claimants -- It is mandatory for the court to determine the legal heir taking into consideration the right to sue or be sued is surviving.

(Para 6.5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 16(1)(d) -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 22, 28 – Territorial jurisdiction of Court -- Suit for specific performance – Possession not prayed specifically – Effect of -- It is clear from the terms of the contract between the parties that the transfer of possession of the suit property is implicit in the said contract and absence of a specific prayer seeking transfer of possession would not have any bearing on the character of the suit, which is one covered by Section 16(d) of the CPC.

(Para 33)

Constitution of India, Article 320 -- Selection process – Increase in number of vacancies -- Public Service Commission – Role of -- Primary role of the KPSC is to aid and facilitate the selection process for ensuring transparency and merit-based recruitment -- Determination of the number of vacancies and the requisition for employees remain the prerogative of the State Government, which is the employer -- Government’s needs evolved, and additional vacancies arose -- It is unreasonable for the KPSC to deny the Government’s request to expand the rank list to include these vacancies, particularly when the process remains within the bounds of the original notification -- Argument that such an expansion would undermine the autonomy of the KPSC is misplaced -- KPSC directed to expand the rank list under the 2014 notification to include the additional vacancies identified by the State Government.

(Para 17-21)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 21, 22 -- Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Fresh proclamation – Challenge to -- Petitioner is about 80 years of age, proceedings for filling up the vacant post of Lambardar of Village were initiated more than 10 years ago and the same have not been finalized till date -- Only two applicants for the post -- Authorities have concurrently held that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if a fresh munadi is ordered to be conducted as the same shall widen the choice of better selection for the post of Lambardar – Neither the copy of the proclamation notice placed on record nor the name of the place where the said notice was pasted forthcoming -- It cannot be concluded that the proclamation was validly conducted – Writ dismissed.

(Para 4, 5)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury in right hip joint -- 30% permanent disability -- B.Ed Student – Disability certificate taken on record as additional evidence -- Accident of 2009, minimum daily wages of unskilled labour was Rs.150/- -- Appellant being a student could not be compared equal to unskilled labour, her monthly income taken as 5,000/- per month – Admission in hospital for 43 days, loss of income during hospitalisation assessed @ Rs.167 per day comes to Rs.7181 – Age 26 at the time of accident, multiplier of 17 applied for 30% disability, loss of future income assessed to Rs. 3,06,000/- (Rs.5,000 x 30/100 x 12 x 17) -- Compensation under the heads of special diets, attendant and transportation assessed as Rs.50,000/- -- For pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- awarded -- Total compensation assessed as Rs.4,38,081 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realisation, excluding the period of delay in filing appeal.

(Para 8-11)

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 53A – Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17 – Transfer of property by unregistered document -- Part performance of contract – Object of Section 53A of T.P.A. – Interpretation of -- Section 53-A was inserted principally for the protection of ignorant transferees who take possession or spend money in improvements relying on documents which are ineffective as transfers or on contracts which cannot be proved for want of registration -- The effect of this section, is to relax the strict provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act in favour of transferees in order to allow the defence of part performance to be established -- Section 53-A is an exception to the provisions which require a contract to be in writing and registered and which bar proof of such contract by any other evidence -- Consequently, the exception must be strictly construed.

(Para 13, 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304A – Death by rash and negligent driving – Simple imprisonment for 6 months – Conversion to fine – Permissibly of -- Not a fit case for extending sympathy and taking a lenient view considering that the said rash and negligent act of the accused has caused death of one person as well as injuries to one other – S.L.P. dismissed.

(Para 18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 239, 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Quashing of FIR – Scope of -- Framing of charge -- Effect of -- High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous without considering the case on merits -- Appellants can apply for discharge, however, the scope of application for discharge is completely different from the scope of a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings -- While arguing a case for discharge, the appellants will not be in a position to rely upon any document which is not the part of charge sheet, ground of abuse of process of law will not be available -- However, in a petition for quashing either u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a wider challenge is available including a challenge on the ground of abuse of process of law -- Impugned order set aside, writ petition restored.

(Para 5-9)

A. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 100, 105, 106 – Stunts on road – Culpable homicide – Death by rash and negligent driving -- When someone does stunts on a public road, endangering public safety, and when the motor sport is not being conducted with the knowledge of the traffic control authorities and ample time has been given to them to take preventive steps, the acts of public stunt, it leads to death would fall in the definition of culpable homicide and if death is not caused then an attempt to cause culpable homicide and such acts would not fall only under section 106 BNS [Analogous to 304-A IPC, 1860] because of the requisite knowledge that such an act is likely to result into death or cause death -- Such an act would not fall under rash and negligent driving, but primafacie amounts to culpable homicide.

(Para 37)

B. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 100, 105 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 – Anticipatory bail -- Death by stunt on road – Accident by modified tractor by fitting an extra turbo pump to increase the acceleration -- Video points towards its high speed on a public road -- If a soft stand is taken towards such stunts, the roads, which are already unsafe, will become more unsafe for pedestrians and two-wheelers, which account for the maximum number of casualties for pedestrians and two-wheelers in road accidents in this region – Anticipatory bail declined.

(Para 3, 12, 13)

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (30 of 1956), Section 6 – Co-parcenary property – Sole-coparcener – Alienation of property – Right of -- Sole surviving co-parcener is entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property as his separate property as long as he remains a sole surviving coparcener and he may sell or mortgage the coparcenary property even though there is no legal necessity or family benefit or may even make a gift of the coparcenary property.

(Para 22)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17(2)(vi) – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), Section 3, Article 22 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3 -- Compromise decree for immovable property – Pre-existing right -- Stamp duty -- Registration – Requirements of -- If a compromise decree involves immovable property other than the property for which a decree is prayed for, such a property would not be exempted and would require registration -- To avail the exemption from compulsory registration, the compromise decree arrived must be only in respect of the property that is the subject-matter of the suit -- Compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat and the award passed by the Lok Adalat thereto assume the character of a decree passed under Order XXIII Rule 3 and would also come within the ambit and purview of sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act, 1908 -- In order to fall under the exception of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act, 1908, the following conditions must be satisfied:

(i)There must be a compromise decree as per the terms of the compromise without any collusion;

(ii)The compromise decree must pertain to the subject property in the suit; and

(iii)There must be a  pre-existing right over the subject property, and the compromise decree should not create a right afresh.

(Para 7-10, 13)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 239 -- Dowry -- Cruelty – Abetment of suicide – Discharge/ Quashing of charge -- Deceased committed suicide after twelve years of marriage -- Around twelve months prior to her death, the appellants had sold the deceased’s streedhan and had tortured her when she demanded them back -- No proximate link between the alleged facts, instances of harassment and her subsequent death by hanging -- Appellants did not have the requisite mens rea and neither did they commit any positive or direct act or omission to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased -- Ingredients for the offence u/s 306, IPC are not made out – Appellant discharged from section 306, however charge u/s 498A of IPC upheld.

(Para 13-15, 26-28)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A -- Dowry case -- Cruelty -- ‘cruelty’ simpliciter is not enough to constitute the offence, rather it must be done either with the intention to cause grave injury or to drive her to commit suicide or with intention to coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands.

(Para 11)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment of suicide -- To bring a conviction u/ s 306, IPC it is necessary to establish a clear mens rea to instigate or push the deceased to commit suicide -- It requires certain such act, omission, creation of circumstances, or words which would incite or provoke another person to commit suicide.

(Para 19)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment of suicide -- Essential ingredients to be fulfilled in order to bring a case under Section 306, IPC are: the abetment; the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.

(Para 20)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment of suicide -- Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish guilt -- For a conviction, there must be evidence of a positive act by the accused, closely linked to the time of the incident, that compelled or drove the victim to commit suicide -- It is essential to establish that the death was a result of suicide and that the accused actively abetted its commission -- Prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the accused played a definitive role in the abetment -- Without clear evidence of an active role in provoking or assisting the suicide, a conviction u/s 306 IPC cannot be sustained.

(Para 21, 22)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia), (ib), 25 -- Divorce – Desertion – Cruelty -- Long separation – Maintenance/ Permanent alimony -- Parties living separately for two decades -- Prolonged separation, creates a presumption of the marriage having irretrievably broken down -- Parties have not shared a marital life since 2004, and all attempts at reconciliation have failed -- Length of separation and the evident animosity between the parties make it clear that there is no possibility of the marriage being revived -- Cruelty, long separation, and irretrievable breakdown of marriage, provide sufficient justification for dissolving the marriage -- Respondent husband to pay a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the appellant as permanent alimony and an additional Rs. 50,00,000/- to their daughter for her education and future expenses, such as her marriage – Divorce, upheld.

(Para 16, 30-41)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Injury case – Future medical treatment -- Full-time skilled attendant -- Appellant would have to be under the supervision of a full-time skilled attendant -- Doctor (PW-3) has opined that the appellant suffers from severe apathy and has no control over the passage of her urine -- Therefore, it is not difficult to see that the appellant would be requiring medical assistance in the form of medicines, diapers, etc., so as to live a relatively comfortable life – Compensation enhanced under this head to Rs.5,00,000/- -- Attendant Charges Rs. 9,42,000/- awarded -- Total compensation under different heads comes to Rs. 50,87,000/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing claim petition till realisation.

(Para 49-52)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 463, 464 – False document -- Forgery -- Document containing a false recital does not amount to forgery.

(Para 33)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(d) -- Forest Rules of Kullu Division of 1878, Rule 4A -- Cheating – Corruption -- Acquittal -- Gift of land by accused – Sanction of Timber distribution right thereafter -- Mere gift of the half share did not amount to divestment of her forest right as per Rule 4A – Accused had not made any false representation, and she cannot be held to be guilty of cheating -- Accused/ Donor, being the right holder, was entitled to get the Tinder Distribution/ TD and the sanction of TD in her favour is not illegal; hence, the offence punishable u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not made out – Acquittal order, upheld.

(Para 2, 36-40)

A. Guarantee – Title of document -- Name of the document is not a decisive factor -- Only because the title of the document contains the word hypothecation, cannot conclude that guarantee is not a part of this document.

(Para 53)

B. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 3(6)(12), 5(8), 7(1), 15(1) -- ‘default’ – Corporate Insolvency Resolution process -- Financial creditor – Corporate Debtor -- Definition of ‘default’ becomes relevant only while invoking the provisions of Section 7(1) of the IBC when the CIRP is sought to be initiated by the Financial Creditor -- There is no requirement u/s 5(8) of the IBC that there can be a debt only when there is a default -- The moment it is established that the financial debt is owed to any person, he/she becomes a Financial Creditor -- A public announcement of CIRP under Section 15(1) must contain the last date of submission of claims as may be specified -- Thus, if a person has a claim within the meaning of Section 3(6), he can submit it on public announcement contemplated by Section 15 being made -- A Financial Creditor has a claim as explained earlier -- For submitting the claim by a Financial Creditor, there is no requirement of actual default.

(Para 62)

C. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 3(6) -- Claim -- If the right to payment exists or if a breach of contract gives rise to a right to payment, the definition of ‘claim’ is attracted -- Whether the cause of action for invoking the guarantee has arisen or not is not relevant for considering the definition of ‘claim’.

(Para 65)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125(4) – Constitution of India, Article 51A(f) -- Maintenance to wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – Wife not want to serve old aged mother-in-law or grandmother-in-law -- One of the grounds for denial the maintenance, if wife refuses to reside with the husband without any reasonable cause -- In Constitution of India under Article 51-A of Part IV-A, wherein the fundamental duties of the citizen of India are enumerated in Clause (f), it is provided ‘to value and preserve the reach heritage of our composite culture’ -- It is the culture in India to serve the old aged mother-in-law or grandmother-in-law as the case may by the wife in order to preserve this culture -- It was obligatory on the part of wife to serve her husband’s mother and maternal grandmother and not to insist for unreasonable demand to live separate from his old aged mother-in-law and the maternal grandmother-in-law – Wife not entitled for maintenance.

(Para 17, 21, 22, 28)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 397 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357C – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 124(1) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 326A, 376, 376AB, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB, 376E – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4, 6, 8, 10 – Rape – Grievous hurt by use of acid -- POCSO -- Treatment of victims – Directions issued:

(i) Whenever any victim/survivor of any of the said offences  approaches a medical facility, diagnostic facility, diagnostic lab, nursing home, hospital, health clinic etc., whether private and public/Government, such victim/survivor shall not be turned away without providing FREE medical treatment, including first aid, diagnostic tests, lab tests, surgery and any other required medical intervention;

ii. Such victim/survivor shall be immediately examined and if required, be given treatment even for sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV etc.;

iii. Such victim/survivor shall be provided physical and mental counselling as may be required;

iv. Such victim/survivor shall be checked for pregnancy, and provided with contraception, if required;

v. Further, if any tests are required to be conducted including ultrasound, etc., the same shall also be conducted. Proper medical advice shall be given to such victim/survivor by the concerned gynaecologist who shall also counsel the victim/ survivor and her family members;

vi. If the victim/ survivor has been brought in an emergent situation, the concerned medical establishment that is approached by or on behalf of such victim/survivor, shall not insist on ID proofs in order to admit the said victim/survivor and administer immediate treatment to the same;

vii. If such a victim/survivor requires in-patient medical treatment, no payment shall be demanded and admission shall be provided to the said victim/survivor;

viii. Every medical facility shall put up a board in the following terms:

“Free out-patient and in-patient medical treatment is available for victims/ survivors of sexual assault, rape, gang rape, acid attacks, etc.”.

The above board shall be put up at the- entrance, the reception, counters and all prominent places with in the medical establishment, in both English and vernacular language;

ix. All doctors, nurses, paramedical personnel, administrative staff of a medical establishment shall be sensitized about the relevant provisions being Section 397 BNSS (Section 357C of CrPC), Section 200 of BNS (Section 166B of IPC) and Rule 6(4) of POCSO Rules, 2020. Specific circulars shall be issued by the management of the medical establishments informing that anyone violating the above provisions would be liable to be punished with imprisonment for a period of one year or with fine or with both. Thus, non-providing such victim/survivor with required medical treatment is a criminal offence and all doctors, administration, officers, nurses, paramedical personnel etc., shall be informed of the same;

x. If any victim/survivor is required to be transferred from one hospital establishment or medical establishment to another, the transition shall also be made smooth and hassle free by providing ambulance, if required, along with certificate to the effect that the victim/survivor is entitled to free medical treatment as per law;

xi. If the police finds that any medical professional, para-medical professional, medical establishment, whether public or private, refuses to provide necessary medical treatment to such victims/survivors, then a complaint shall be immediately registered under Section 200 of BNS, 2023 (Section 166B of IPC) as the same is a punishable offence. The police may also inform the concerned DLSA or DSLSA to enable assistance to the victim/survivor;

xii. The concerned Police Station approached by or on behalf of such victim/survivor shall take the said victim/survivor to the nearest hospital, whether public or private, for obtaining the above medical treatment without any delay and in an expeditious manner;

xiii. Such victim/ survivor shall also be referred by the Police to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) /District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) for providing legal assistance including appointment of a lawyer for the complaint to be filed in respect of the offence committed upon the said victim/survivor;

xiv. In the city of Delhi, if such victims/survivors approach the DSLSA/DLSA for seeking assistance for availing free medical treatment, then the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme (DVCS), requires the DSLSA/DLSA to forward cases of such victims/survivors to Government of NCT of Delhi, to ensure free of cost treatment from any Government hospital, if the need so arises. However, the DSLSA/DLSA is also free to refer such cases to private hospitals, nursing home, laboratories, etc.;

xv. It is clarified that availing of free medical treatment by such victims/survivors from either Government/Public or Private hospitals is not dependent upon a referral by the DSLSA/DLSA under the DVCS, as the same is a statutory right of such victims/survivors under Section 357C of CrPC, Section 397 of BNSS and Rule 6 (4) of POCSO Rules, 2020.

xvi. The DSLSA upon receiving information on its “Sampark” email-id i.e., sampark.dslsa@gov.in regarding registration of an FIR in respect of any offence mentioned hereinabove, shall take necessary action and follow-up with the concerned victim/survivor in respect of receiving free medical aid. Further, the DSLSA shall take urgent steps to process such FIRs and communicate/circulate the same to the concerned DLSAs for taking appropriate steps in terms of the directions herein.

(Para 21)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13(1)(ia) – Divorce petition -- Visiting right of father to meet minor daughter (born on 06.06.2022) -- Matrimonial disputes and grave allegations between parents should not be an impediment to a child’s right to have care, company, and affection of both the parents – While no guardianship or custody petition has been preferred by the respondent/ father, visitation rights require a careful and empathetic consideration during the pendency of the divorce proceedings – Respondent allowed to visit the minor daughter every Sunday between 10:00 AM and 02:00 PM.

(Para 3, 5, 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Cruelty – Relative/ Girlfriend / Women – A girlfriend or even a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage could not be construed to be a relative -- Apart from that for bringing a case u/s 498A of IPC, the material should show that the ill treatment was meted out by the husband or a relative, which is connected with non-fulfilment of demand of dowry -- No averment or material to show that causing harassment to respondent No.2 on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry -- Appeal allowed, criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 10-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 197 – Sanction for prosecution -- Earlier sanction declined -- Subsequent sanction given based on the same material -- In the absence of any other contra material which weighed in the mind of the sanctioning authority, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

(Para 5)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 50 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS Case -- Regular bail -- Search of accused – Magistrate or Gazetted officer – Use of word “Any” instead “Nearest” Gazetted officer – Effect of -- Intent behind the provision is to ensure that the person about to be searched is made aware of the option to be taken before a third person other than the one who is conducting the search -- Use of the expression “nearest” refers to the convenience as the suspect is to be searched, delay should be avoided -- Nothing more is articulated and meant by the words used, or the intent behind the provision -- High Court granted bail stating that use of the word ‘any’ does not satisfy the mandate of the ‘nearest’ Gazetted Officer -- Recovery of 500 gms. of heroin is a substantial commercial quantity, respondent involved in another case, in which the quantity involved was an intermediate quantity, respondent is on bail in the said case -- Impugned judgment set aside.

(Para 5-10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17 – Further cross-examination – Right of party -- There is no vested right in a private party to seek recalling of the witnesses for the purpose of further cross-examination.

(Para 7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439(1A) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(3),376AB, 376DA, 376DB – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 15A(3) -- Rape – Regular Bail -- Victim’s right of hearing – SC/ST victim -- As per Section 439(1A) of Cr.P.C., the presence of the informant or any person authorised by him or her is obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under sub-section (3) of Section 376 or Section 376AB or Section 376DA or Section 376DB of the IPC -- It is also mandatory on the part of the Special Public Prosecutor of the State Government to inform the victim about the court proceedings, including bail proceedings as contemplated in sub-section (3) of Section 15A of the SC/ ST Act, 1989.

(Para 6)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 323, 363, 376DA, 506, 392 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 5(g), 6 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Sections 3(2), 15(5A) – POCSO -- Regular Bail -- Victim’s right of hearing – SC/ST victim -- In gross violation of the statutory provisions contained in Section 439(1A) of Cr.P.C. and Section 15A(3) of the SC/ST Act, High Court granted bail in a very casual and cursory manner and without assigning any cogent reasons, though the concerned respondents are prima facie involved in a very serious offences -- Impugned orders in utter disregard of the mandatory provisions contained in the Cr.P.C. as well as in the SC/ST Act, set aside.

(Para 7)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 22, 28(3) – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 55 -- Suit for specific performance – Possession not part of decree – Execution of – Whether the relief of possession may be granted by the executing court in a case where the suit has been decreed for specific performance simpliciter and no express relief for the transfer of possession of the suit property has been granted – High Court directed Executing Court to issue a warrant of possession of the suit property in favour of plaintiff-decree holder – Plaintiff can amend the plaint to include a claim for the relief of possession, partition, etc. at any stage of the proceeding, includes the stage of execution of the decree by the executing court -- Order upheld, SLP dismissed. Babu Lal’s case (1982) 1 SCC 525 & Rohit Kochhar’s case 2024 INSC 920 relied.

(Para 14)

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), Section 2(12) -- Factory – ESI contribution -- Amendment of 1989 – Effect of -- Dispute relates to demand raised by appellant Corporation for ESI contribution for the time period w.e.f. April, 1983 to April, 1984 -- Prior to Amending Act of 1989, the mandate of the statute was that the factory means any premises including the precincts employing 20 or more persons -- Number of persons employed being less than 20, the premises of the respondent would not fall within the ambit of ‘factory’ as adumbrated u/s 2(12) prior to Amending Act of 1989 – ESI Court rightly held that respondent was not covered under the ESI Act prior to 1989-the period for which demand was raised – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 13-19)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(c), 2(d), 156 (1), 156(3), 200, 202 – Cognizable offence -- Non-registration of FIR -- Complaint to Magistrate – Procedure of -- When a complaint is presented before a Magistrate, he has the option either to order an investigation as provided u/s 156(1) of Code or to proceed u/s 200 of Code, examine the complainant and his witnesses and then proceed further under the provision of Section 202 of Code -- An order u/s 156(3) of Code which is the second option is in fact in the nature of reminder to the police to perform its duty and reinvestigate into the alleged cognizable offence u/s 156(1) of Code.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(c), 156(3) – Cognizable offence – Complaint u/s 156(3) of CR.P.C. -- Duty of Magistrate -- While disposing of a complaint moved u/s 156(3) of the Code, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind to the bare contents of the application regarding disclosure of cognizable offence, though he is not bound to proceed to decide whether or not there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further to satisfy himself regarding commission of cognizable offence.

(Para 5)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(d), 2(g), 156(1), 156(3) – Cognizable offence -- Complaint -- Complaint u/s 156(3) of CR.P.C. -- Duty of Magistrate -- The Magistrate may treat an application under Section 156(3) of the Code as a complaint within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Code and is not bound to pass an order for registration of FIR -- He can also dismiss the complaint if no cognizable offence is made out and can also pass an order after going through the contents of the complaint and on analyzing the preliminary evidence appended with the complaint, by recording a finding that a prima facie cognizable offence appears to have been committed or not.

(Para 5)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(d), 2(g), 156(1), 156(3) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Cognizable offence -- Complaint u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. – Treated as private complaint – Quashing of -- Though in the complaint, a specific prayer made for sending the same u/s 156(3) of the Code for registration of FIR but after receipt of action taken report, instead of applying its mind on the question as to whether a case for sending the case for registration of FIR was made out or not or that it was a case, which was to be treated as a private complaint, the learned trial Court straightway proceeded to pass the order for recording preliminary evidence and adjourned the case for that purpose -- Impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it has not been passed in consonance of the well-established principles of law -- Order set aside, matter remanded to the learned trial Court for hearing the arguments on the question as to whether the prayer made by him for sending the complaint to SHO concerned for registration of an FIR deserves to be allowed or not and to pass an order afresh by recording reasons thereof.

(Para 6, 7)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 109, 115(2), 351(2), 191(3), 190 – Attempt to murder – Anticipatory bail -- No injury attributed to the petitioner, except lalkara raised by him -- Co-accused granted concession of interim anticipatory bail -- No reason to deny the petitioner the concession of anticipatory bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 4, 5)

A. Criminal trial -- Interested witness – Evidence of -- Merely because a witness is an interested witness, it cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such a witness -- However, the testimony of such a witness has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder -- Acquittal – Deposition of witness – Parity for all accused -- High Court comes to a conclusion that it is difficult to believe that the witness could have witnessed the incident in the manner narrated by him and granted benefit of doubt to co-accused persons then conviction of accused on the basis of the evidence of the very same witness only on the basis of conjectures and surmises is not permissible -- Seizure of knife, testimony of Inspector of police would show that the recovery was made from an open place accessible to one and all -- As such, only on the basis of the circumstance of such a recovery, the conviction could not have been based – Appeal allowed, impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashed and set aside -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 14-17)

Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Land) Rules, 1971, Rule 27 – Allotment of land --– Violation of rules -- There has to be transparency in matters of allotment of land by the government, adherence to the rules and regulations becomes important in the cases of allotment -- Not only MRCHS’ proposed members found ineligible, but the society was allowed to change its members frequently, starting from the point when it accepted the Letter of Intent in its favour – Land is a precious material resource of the community and therefore the least which is required from the State is transparency in its distribution -- There has been a complete arbitrariness in the allotment in favour of MRCHS -- Allotment of the plot in favour of MRCHS is not proper, as it is violative of the procedure as well as eligibility criteria -- Civil appeal allowed,  Letter of Allotment in favour of MRCHS stands quashed.

(Para 7, 11-13)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 58 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256 -- NDPS case -- Punishment for vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest – Jurisdiction of Special Judge -- Special Judge could not have conducted the proceedings against the appellant/ Superintendent of Police  for the offence punishable u/s 58 of the NDPS Act inasmuch as such proceedings could have been conducted only by a Magistrate -- Procedure as required under Chapter XX i.e. Sections 251 to 256 of the Cr.P.C. has also not been followed -- Notice issued by the learned Special Judge to the appellant u/s 58 of the NDPS Act and all subsequent proceedings quashed and set aside.

(Para 2, 26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13 -- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 53 -- Maintenance to wife – Charge over property – Preferential right of wife -- No objection of any secured creditor, operational creditor or any other claim shall be entertained opposing the entitlement of the respondents for maintenance -- This right is a subset of the right to dignity and a dignified life, which in turn flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Right to maintenance being equivalent to a fundamental right will be superior to and have overriding effect than the statutory rights afforded to Financial Creditors, Secured Creditors, Operational Creditors or any other such claimants encompassed within the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or similar such laws.

(Para 11, 12)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Multiplier method for 13 year old deceased -- Accident on 15.03.2016 -- Notional income taken as Rs.50,000/- per annum and multiplier of 15 applied --- No addition towards loss of future prospects is to be made -- Claimant-appellants would also be entitled to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and the claimant-appellants would also be entitled to Rs.48,000/- (Rs.40,000+20% increase) each towards loss of consortium -- Total Compensation comes to Rs.9,78,000/-.

(Para 1, 6, 7)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 491, 528 -- Absence from trial – Forfeiture of bail bond -- Arrest warrant – Quashing of -- Objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under the BNSS, 2023 is to ensure that the accused remains present before the Court to receive the orders and punishments as are passed qua the accused -- If the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested – Petitioner was granted bail by the learned trial Court, however due to a misimpression regarding the date, he could not appear before the learned trial Court on two dates and on account of the same, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner, he is ready to appear and face the trial -- Petition allowed, Trial Court directed to release the petitioner on same bail bonds/surety bonds.

(Para 5-8)

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 19, 44, 45, 50 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 479, 483 – PMLA Case – Bail – Long incarnation -- A suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention – The Court would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or influential accused do not obstruct the ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, namely, actions that undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fair trial – Trial Court directed to decide on framing of charges before 31.12.2024, thereafter fix a date within the second and third week of January 2025 for recording the statements of such prosecution witnesses who are the most material or vulnerable – All such witnesses, especially those who have expressed apprehension of danger to their lives (who might be two or three), will be examined on these dates – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on 01.02.2025.

(Para 17, 18)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 23 Rule 3, 3A, Order 47 Rule 1, 2, Section 114, 151 -- Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 19, 28 -- Compromise of suit – Lawful agreement – Requirements of law – Recalling application – Remedy of -- When the court disposes of a proceeding pursuant to a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3, it bears the duty to examine this issue and be satisfied that the agreement or compromise is lawful -- This issue can be agitated by way of a recall application even after the compromise decree has been passed -- Only the court that entertains the petition of compromise can determine its legality, at the time of recording the compromise or when it is questioned by way of a recall application -- No other remedy is available to the party who is aggrieved by the compromise decree as an appeal and fresh suit are not maintainable under the CPC -- Courts must not curtail statutorily provisioned remedial mechanisms available to parties – High Court to decide recall application on its own merits.

(Para 13-17)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged In Black-Marketing Of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (LV of 1981), Section 3(2) -- Detention order -- Pubic disorder -- Every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder -- When a person can be dealt with in exercise of powers to maintain the law and order, unless the acts of the proposed detainee are the ones which have the tendency of disturbing the public order a resort to preventive detention which is a harsh measure would not be permissible -- Six cases are registered for selling illicit liquor, the Excise Authority did not find it necessary to arrest the appellant even on a single occasion -- It would have been a different matter after releasing on bail, appellant continued with his activities -- Statements of witnesses do not show that the said witnesses were threatened by the appellant in the presence of the villagers which would create a perception in the mind of the villagers that the appellant herein is a threat to the public order -- Detention order set aside.

(Para 13-20)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(x) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 294, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 239 -- Offence under SC/ST Act -- Public view – Backyard of private house -- Place of occurrence was at the backyard of the appellant’s house -- Backyard of a private house cannot be within the public view -- Persons who accompanied the second respondent/ complainant were also the employees or the labour force she had engaged for the purpose of carrying out repairs to her house which is adjacent to the appellant’s house -- They cannot also be termed as public in general – Appellant discharged from the offence.

(Para 13)

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (14 of 2013), Section 13, 26 – Copy of Inquiry report – Right of victim -- Report of the Inquiry Committee was not given to the petitioner, as she was not an accused and the Inquiry Report did not find anything material against the accused person – Held, Inquiry Report ought to have been given to the victim as it is required to be given u/s 13 (1) to all the “concerned parties” -- Petitioner is a concerned party.

(Para 8, 9)

National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956), Section 3G -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34, 37 – Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 14 – Delay in objections u/s 34 of Arbitration Act – Applicability of Section 14 of Limitation Act – Regular First Appeal filed before the High Court on an erroneous understanding against arbitration award – When the substantive remedies u/s 34 and/or 37 of the Arbitration Act are by their very nature limited in their scope due to statutory prescription, it is necessary to interpret the limitation provisions liberally, or else, even that limited window to challenge an arbitral award will be lost -- Courts of law will keep in mind the need to secure and protect such a remedy while calculating the period of limitation for invoking these jurisdictions -- Applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, period excluded, the appellant held entitled to the statutory remedy u/s 34 of the Act.

(Para 3, 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Dowry case – Quashing of FIR – Parents-in-law/ Sister-in-laws – Never resided with the couple and their children at Tamilnadu, are living in Andhra Pradesh and Nellore – No substantial and specific allegations have been made against them other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1/ husband for demanding more dowry -- Generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution -- Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members -- High Court, erred in not exercising the powers available to it u/s 482 CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants -- Appeal allowed, FIR against appellant Nos.1 to 6, charge-sheet filed in the Court and the trial against the appellants quashed.

(Para 2, 24-33)

Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, Rule 8 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 – Corruption charges – Departmental enquiry – Compulsory retirement -- Judicial review -- Scope of judicial review in departmental inquiries is limited -- Appellant unable to point out any glaring illegality or violation of principles of natural justice in the conduct of proceedings or ignoring of any admissible or material evidence by disciplinary authorities or reliance upon any inadmissible evidence which would call for interference in the orders passed by Disciplinary and Appellate authority – Writ dismissed --  LPA dismissed.

(Para 2, 10-13)

Constitution of India, Article 22(5) -- Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (46 of 1988), Section 3 -- Detention order – Supply of illegible copies of the documents – Legality of -- Supply of legible copies of the documents relied upon is a sine qua non for making an effective representation -- Right to make effective representation being a fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and supply of the illegible copy of documents indeed has deprived him in making an effective representation and denial thereof will hold the order of detention illegal and not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law – Detention order quashed.

(Para 12-14)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of TGT (Arts) against the rules – Withdrawing of appointment after 6 years – Permissibility of -- Illegality, if any, in appointing the petitioner as TGT (Arts) on 29.09.2017 was committed by the respondents -- Petitioner had already rendered six years of service as TGT (Arts) when respondents realized the mistake in his appointment -- It will be iniquitous to turn the clock back to 29.09.2017, especially when NCTE notification issued on 13.11.2019 comes to petitioner’s rescue -- Writ petition allowed – Impugned order withdrawing appointment quashed and set aside -- Petitioner shall be deemed to have been validly appointed pursuant to office order dated 29.09.2017 -- All consequential benefits, shall follow including petitioner’s regularization on that basis.

(Para 1, 4,5)