Code of Civil Procedure, Code, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1, 10 -- Striking off defence -- Non-filing of written statement -- Grant of final opportunity -- Defence struck off by trial Court as petitioners/defendants failed to file written statement despite more than four opportunities and lapse of about eleven months from first appearance -- Though issues framed, no witness examined -- In facts and circumstances, one final opportunity granted to file written statement subject to payment of Rs. 20,000/- as costs.

(Para 1-3)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 -- Summoning u/s 319 Cr.P.C. – Challenge to -- Petitioner and his brother have been named from the very beginning -- It has been alleged that brother was carrying a knife, while petitioner and 2/3 other boys came with sticks, batons etc. -- Even a specific role has been assigned to the petitioner that the petitioner was armed with danda (stick) in his hand and they all had attacked the deceased -- Even, the petitioner gave injuries on the head and face of the deceased with a danda (stick) and the said fact also finds corroboration from the medical evidence in the case -- Injuries, which were attributed to the petitioner, find corroboration from the medical evidence also -- Thus, the trial Court had rightly ordered the summoning of the petitioner as an additional accused, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C – Revision petition dismissed.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 163, 176 – Election petition – All contesting candidate as party -- In terms of the provisions of Section 176 of the 1994 Act, all contesting candidates should have been impleaded as parties and the impleading of only the returned candidate was not sufficient.

(Para 19)

B. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 163, 176 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 39 -- Election petition – Report of the handwriting expert – It is of advisory value and the science of examination of handwriting is not a perfect science.

(Para 19)

C. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 163, 176 – Election petition – An election cannot be set aside on the mere asking of another contesting party.

(Para 20)

Constitution of India, Article 21, 226 – Live-in relationship – Police Protection -- Marriage is not a must for providing protection to a couple in a “Live-in Relationship” -- State is obligated to protect their life and liberty -- Senior Superintendent of Police directed to look into the representation and if any threat perception is found, to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Joint possession -- Plaintiffs having lost their battle for title over the estate, cannot claim joint possession over the suit property.

(Para 15)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 100 – Regular Second appeal -- Substantial question of law -- Misreading of evidence and going beyond pleadings breeds perversity constitutes substantial question of law -- Judgment & decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court reversed.

(Para 17)

A. Property – Title – Entry in property register of Municipal Corporation -- Proof of title – Except for a random entry in its property register, the MCD never asserted title over the plots in question before any forum – A mere entry in the list of properties maintained by the MCD cannot, by itself, constitute a valid proof of title over the subject land.

(Para 24, 27)

B. Property – Layout plan – Land earmarked for public purpose – De-reservation – Effect – Land originally earmarked for a High School – Competent authority de-reserved the land admeasuring 1600 sq. yards – No material on record to show that notwithstanding such de-reservation, land would continue to retain character of being reserved for a public purpose – Finding that land required to be retained for public purpose held unsustainable on the face of the record.

(Para 28)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 – Power of Executing Court -- Executing Court is empowered to decide questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and has no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree sought to be executed -- It has to execute the decree as it is without changing the same -- Jurisdiction of Executing Court is limited to give effect to the decree as passed and not to assume the role of a trial court so as to substitute its own view in place of that expressed under the decree.

(Para 24)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 – Power of Executing Court -- Executing Court has to strictly conform to the decree under execution and if the decree provides for reciprocal obligations, it must ensure compliance of those conditions by both the parties in pith and substance, unless the decree is a nullity.

(Para 27)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47 – Power of Executing Court -- Compromise decree describes the portions of land falling into the shares of the parties -- Executing Court has to ensure that both the parties fulfil their obligations and exchange the land as per the decree and to see that the sale deed is executed as directed -- Merely for the reasons that exchange of some portions of the land may not be practicable for the reason that constructions on it are not as per the sanctioned map or that part of it has been sold off, are all immaterial.

(Para 30)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 109(1), 111(2)(b), 111(5), 121(1), 132, 221 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25(1-B)a, 29, 54 – Regular bail – Attempt to murder – Criminal history -- Alleged encounter with police – Petitioner named only in disclosure statement of co-accused and recovery of weapon effected on basis of disclosure statement – Petitioner involved in two other cases under the Arms Act, third for the offence of theft, fourth under the Excise Act and last one is of cheating and fraud -- All these five cases are triable by the Court of Magistrate and the petitioner is on bail in all cases except one FIR -- Till date the petitioner has not been convicted in any of the cases registered against him – Petitioner in custody for more than one year and only 3 out of 33 prosecution witnesses examined – Role yet to be established and no injury caused to police officials – Bail allowed.

(Para 3-9)

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949), Section 13 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 – Eviction petition – Impleadment of co-owners at instance of tenant – In eviction proceedings only landlord and tenant are necessary parties and a co-owner landlord can maintain eviction petition without impleading all other co-owners – Tenant cannot compel impleadment of other alleged co-owners and eviction proceedings cannot be converted into inter se title dispute between co-owners – Order allowing impleadment set aside.

(Paras 6–10)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Constitution of India, Article 227 – Amendment of plaint – Revisional jurisdiction -- Validity of transfer deed is under challenge in the suit – Amendment sought to plead existence of 30 year old unregistered Will with respect to suit property -- Application moved at initial stage when no witness had been examined – Once both the issues are considered and decided, the ownership and rights of the plaintiff and defendants in the residential house would be finally and properly adjudicated -- Amendment allowed by the Trial Court -- High Court in exercise of power under Article 227 cannot act as a court of appeal and interference is to be kept to the minimum – Impugned order allowing amendment upheld and revision petition dismissed.

(Paras 2–10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 197 – Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, Sections 342, 330, 34 – Sanction for prosecution of public servant – Police excess/ illegal custody – Complainant alleged that police officers including petitioner-SDPO kept him in illegal custody from 10.05.2005 to 01.06.2005 at different police stations and subjected him to third-degree torture causing serious injuries – Not only the acts which have been done by the public servant in exercise of his official duty but even the acts, which a public servant has done in purported exercise of official duty, would be covered under the protective umbrella of Section 197 CrPC, therefore, the test is whether there is a reasonable nexus between act done by public servant and his official duties -- Even if a public servant has exceeded his powers while discharging his official duties, Section 197 CrPC would come into play -- Section 197 CrPC, is a shield to the public servants, who cannot be removed from their services, without the sanction of the Govt. from their false and unwarranted prosecution, without a formal sanction to prosecute -- The idea is to protect them from any kind of harassment, at the hands of unscrupulous elements.

(Paras 15–21)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 306(4)(b), 482 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 343(4)(b), 528 – Approver – Release on bail pending trial – Provisions of Section 306(4)(b) Cr.P.C. requiring that an approver “shall, unless he is already on bail, be detained in custody until the termination of the trial” do not operate as a blanket ban on his release – Provision is intended not to punish the approver but to protect him from possible indignation, rage and resentment of his associates and to prevent temptation of retracting from disclosure – Once an accused is tendered pardon and makes a full and true disclosure, he ceases to be an accused and becomes a witness for the prosecution – Custody of an approver is co-terminus with fulfilment of conditions of pardon – Section 306(4)(b) of the Code appears to be directory and not mandatory -- Such a person cannot invoke the provisions of Section 439 of the Code corresponding to Section 483 of BNSS -- Continued detention despite compliance with conditions of pardon may violate right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution – High Court in exercise of inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) can enlarge an approver on bail even before culmination of trial where exceptional and reasonable circumstances exist – Where approver has been examined as prosecution witness, stood by his earlier disclosure without contradiction and seeks enlargement voluntarily, he deserves to be released on bail subject to reasonable conditions – Impugned order set aside and petitioner-approver admitted to bail.

(Paras 12–21, 26, 27)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 3 – Affidavit of plaintiff in rebutal -- Suit for permanent injunction – Petitioner-plaintiff sought to place affidavit Ex. PW4/A on record by way of rebuttal evidence – Held, if the petitioner-plaintiff intended to lead rebuttal evidence, he ought to have reserved his right to do so at the time of closing his affirmative evidence -- However, no such reservation was made -- Consequently, the affidavit Ex. PW4/A cannot be permitted to be taken on record by way of rebuttal evidence.

(Para 2-8)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 109, 118(1)(2), 126(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2), 324(4) -- Regular bail – Attempt to murder -- Unlawful assembly – Long custody – Delay in trial – Petitioner member of an unlawful assembly assaulted complainant with an axe causing several injuries, the combined effect of which could be dangerous -- Prima facie case made out – However, petitioner in custody for about one year and one month and trial likely to take considerable time as even charges not framed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds.

(Para 7, 8)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 -- Regular bail – Cheating/ Criminal breach of trust -- Long custody – Delay in trial – Custody for a period of more than ten months -- Apparently a dispute of civil nature, the offence is triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate and maximum punishment prescribed up to seven years -- Trial is not likely to be concluded in near future as out of twenty two prosecution witnesses only four have been examined -- Right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Bail allowed.

(Para 7-13)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Liability in motor accident – Vehicle requisitioned for election duty – Bus owned by private school requisitioned by State authorities for Gram Panchayat Elections under statutory power – During period of requisition the bus dashed into motorcycle causing death of rider – Tribunal awarded compensation fastening liability on insurer – High Court shifted liability upon State authority requisitioning the vehicle – Held, where a vehicle is requisitioned for public functions and an incident occurs during the period of such requisition, liability ought properly to be borne by the requisitioning authority, and not by the insurer engaged by the owner for the vehicle’s regular and voluntary use -- Order of High Court affirmed.

(Paras 3-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 (2)(n), 506 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Rape on false promise of marriage -- Consensual relationship -- Quashing of FIR -- Complainant, a married woman and mother of two children, employed in a massage parlour and in charge of running the same, had a physical relationship with the appellant who visited the parlour as a customer – Relationship commenced in August 2023 and continued till March 2024 – Complainant informed appellant of pregnancy on 15.03.2024 – FIR lodged after appellant’s marriage on 12.03.2024 alleging rape on promise of marriage – No allegation that she was divorced from her husband or even separated from him – Held, there was a consensual relationship, neither inducement nor threat and no possibility of a deception luring the complainant into a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage – Even if FSL report establishes paternity, consent demolishes allegation of rape on promise of marriage – Order of High Court refusing to quash proceedings set aside and FIR quashed.

(Para 7 to 9)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Impleadment in writ proceedings -- Necessary and proper party – High Court declined prayer of appellant to be impleaded in pending writ petition and also refused clarification/modification of interim order – Record showed that interim order passed in writ petition was relied upon by municipal authorities while dealing with appellant’s case and revised building plans were rejected on footing that operation of the 2025 Rules had been kept in abeyance – Held, where a person is directly and demonstrably affected by an interim order passed in writ proceedings, such person cannot be shut out merely because he was not an original party – At the least he is a proper party whose presence enables Court to effectively adjudicate consequences of its own order – High Court erred in holding that appellant had no lis – Order refusing impleadment set aside – Appellant directed to be impleaded in writ petition.

(Paras 7-18)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 1 Rule 10 -- Writ – Impleadment of Necessary/ Proper party -- Though proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are not to be controlled by the technicalities of pleadings as in an ordinary civil suit, the principles underlying Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC continue to furnish sound guidance -- A necessary party is one without whom no effective order can be passed -- A proper party is one whose presence enables the Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon the questions involved.

(Para 7)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 33C(2) -- State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955, Rule 22(i)(a)(c) -- Pension -- Entitlement under Pension Fund Rules – Voluntary retirement vs voluntary abandonment of service – Appellant claimed pensionary benefits relying on Rule 22(i)(c) of Pension Fund Rules contending that he had completed more than 20 years of service – Record showed that service for purpose of pension is to be reckoned from date of confirmation and admission to Pension Fund – On calculation, service of appellant after completion of probation came to less than 20 years i.e. 19 years, 09 months and 25 days – Further, case was not of voluntary retirement but of voluntary abandonment of service as appellant remained absent for long period and services were declared voluntarily abandoned – Conditions under Rule 22(i)(c) not satisfied – Even under Rule 22(i)(a), appellant had neither completed 20 years of qualifying service nor attained age of 50 years – Hence, appellant not entitled to pension under Pension Fund Rules – Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 23-26, 30-32)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138, 139 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 438, 528 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Issuance of process – Presumption -- Dismissal of complaint at pre-trial stage – At the stage of issuance of process what is prima facie required to be seen is issuance of cheque by drawer, its dishonour on presentation, issuance of statutory notice and filing of complaint within prescribed period – Once issuance of cheque and signature are not disputed, statutory presumption u/s 139 that cheque was issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability comes into play – Burden shifts on drawer to prove contrary during trial – Statutory presumption cannot be dislodged in a summary manner at pre-trial stage by contending that cheque was not issued for legally enforceable debt – Sessions Court and High Court erred in setting aside order issuing process – Complaint restored for trial on merits.

(Paras 8-12)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Dying declaration – Evidentiary value – A dying declaration is a very important species of evidence capable of proving the crime proper and identifying the accused, an exception to hearsay having been provided by Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act -- Court should be satisfied it is made by the deceased without any prompting or tutoring or coercion or is a mere figment of imagination -- Then conviction can be based solely on the dying declaration and there is no requirement of any corroboration.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Dying declaration – Form of declaration -- It can be reduced to writing or can be oral, as testified by reliable witnesses -- It can be one or numerous and if more than one; exculpatory and inculpatory, it is for the Court to find out which is believable -- It can be a lengthy one or a short one, so far as the crime is spoken of and identification of the perpetrator comes through -- It can be a single narrative or in a question and answer form -- It can either have a history of the rancour between the perpetrator and the victim or can be merely the brief statement of the incident.

(Para 13)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Dying declaration – Medical condition/ opinion -- The capacity of the injured to make the statement, both physical and mental, need not be necessarily certified by a doctor and would rest again on the satisfaction of the Court on an analysis of the testimony of the various witnesses and the other evidence coming forth in trial -- If the Court is satisfied of the fit state of mind of the injured from the evidence on record, a contrary medical opinion or an absence of it will be inconsequential.

(Para 13)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Dying declaration – Where to made -- It can be made before a Magistrate; Executive or Judicial, a Doctor, a Police Officer, a relative or a third party whose presence is not doubtful -- The desire of the declarant to live, through the truth despite fear of imminent death cannot be easily brushed aside.

(Para 13)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Murder – Son and daughter-in-law accused of murder – Acquittal – Lapses in investigation and trial – Non-compliance with Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Investigation found to be grossly deficient – Scene mahazar not drawn, no forensic examination conducted at the scene of crime and no independent witnesses examined – Cause of fire not investigated and presence of the accused near the crime scene not established – Delay in registration of FIR despite prior information received at the police station and presence of police officials at the scene constituted a serious lapse – Manner in which the FIS was recorded cast doubt on the conduct of the Investigating Officer – Dying declarations ought to have been recorded with greater caution and preferably in the presence of a doctor with certification – Incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence must be put to the accused in their entirety under Section 313 Cr.P.C., a duty cast upon both the Court and the Prosecutor – Failure to do so may vitiate the prosecution case – Acquittal recorded by the High Court upheld.

(Para 21-32)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 323, 498-A, 34 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – General and omnibus allegations against in-laws -- High Court quashed proceedings against sister-in-law but declined similar relief to other in-laws – FIR disclosed that allegations against appellants and sister-in-law were identical – No specific overt act, date or place attributed to appellants – Mere allegation that appellants used to quarrel does not constitute ingredients of offences alleged – Applying different standards to similarly placed accused held erroneous – Where allegations against accused persons stand on identical footing, relief granted to one accused on ground of general and omnibus allegations must equally extend to others – Different standards cannot be applied -- Proceedings against appellants also quashed.

(Paras 7, 10, 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 323, 498-A, 34 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Matrimonial dispute – Delay in lodging complaint – Counter-blast to divorce proceedings --  Marriage solemnised in July 2019 – Husband filed divorce petition in March 2021 – Criminal complaint against in-laws lodged in March 2022 – Though delay alone not sufficient ground for quashing, viewed in conjunction with the absence of any specific allegations attributable to them, the delay lends credence to the submission that the criminal complaint against the in-laws may have been instituted by way of a counter-blast to the divorce proceedings initiated by the husband -- When these two considerations are read together, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present appellants cannot be sustained.

(Para 8)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Death of minor child – Deceased aged about 3 years at the time of accident – Multiplier of 18 applied as appropriate in cases involving minor victims – Minimum wages of skilled worker in the State of Haryana i.e. Rs.11,233.18/- per month taken as deceased’s income – Compensation awarded under conventional heads including loss of estate, transportation, funeral expenses and separate consortium for each claimant, with 10% enhancement after every three years – Interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization held reasonable.

(Paras 5–9)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 26 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder – Conviction based on dying declaration – Evidentiary value – Dying declaration recorded by Magistrate in question-answer form after medical certification of fitness –Plea of tutoring by relatives found to be a bald assertion – Though eyewitnesses turned hostile, medical evidence corroborated the dying declaration – Dying declaration found reliable and sufficient to sustain conviction – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court not suffering from manifest error warranting interference – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 6–13)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 26 -- Dying declaration -- Generally speaking, these declarations enjoy a special position given the timing and the nature thereof -- This position rests on a philosophical understanding that when a person is about to meet his maker or in other words the oncoming of death and its finality is imminent, considerations which may force a person to speak other than the truth pale into insignificance and what does fall from them would, therefore, be only the truth – It is exception to the rule of hearsay and, if a Court finds it consistent, believable and free of tutoring, can convict the person named therein.

(Para 9)

Constitution of India, Article 16 -- Service Law – Recruitment – Constable – Physical Endurance & Measurement Test (PE&MT) – Absence on scheduled date – Effect – Advertisement stipulating that schedule of PE&MT was final and not alterable – Candidate abstained from appearing and was marked “absent” – Illness not of such nature as to warrant exceptional treatment – Mere non-consideration or non-communication of decision on representations seeking rescheduling does not confer enforceable right – Tribunal and High Court erred in directing rescheduling – Belonging to backward community not a ground to grant such relief – Sympathy or compassion cannot override fairness in public employment – Orders set aside – Appeal allowed.

(Paras 4-14)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 292, 294 -- Obscene words – Acquittal -- Mere use of the word ‘bastard’, by itself, is not sufficient to arouse prurient interest of a person -- More so, when such words are commonly used in modern era during heated conversations -- Conviction of the appellants for offence punishable u/s 294(b) IPC is not sustainable, set aside.

(Para 20)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 324, 304 Part II – Common intention – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- A-1 charged on the deceased by taking an Aruval in his hand but, when PW-4 intervened, gave two blows to PW-4, which did not result in any grievous injury -- Testimony of PW-4 that A-2 took a log and gave a hard blow on the head of the deceased while uttering that all problems are because of the deceased and it is better that he dies, but this statement is not attributed to A-1 -- Besides, there is no evidence that A-1 exhorted A-2 to strike the deceased -- No reliable evidence to show that A-1 had beaten the deceased after he fell to the ground --  Not be safe to hold that A-1 shared common intention with A-2 to cause such bodily harm to the deceased as is likely to cause his death -- Conviction of A-1 u/s 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC set aside -- However, conviction of A-1 for causing injury to PW-4 and thereby committing offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is confirmed.

(Para 21)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304 Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Section 304 Part II IPC – A-2 took a log and gave a hard blow on the head of the deceased while uttering that all problems are because of the deceased and it is better that he dies – Injury sustained by the deceased discloses fracture of the skull and there were blood clots in the brain -- No evidence that the death had occurred on account of improper treatment – Conviction of A-2 under Section 304 Part II IPC confirmed -- Having regard to the fact that the incident is of the year 2014 and was preceded by an altercation between neighbours, who are close relatives, arising from a boundary dispute, and injury was not caused by using a dangerous weapon, but by a log lying on the spot, and only a solitary blow was inflicted in the heat of the moment – Sentence reduced to 03 years from 05 years R.I.

(Para 21-28)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Judicial Review of Punishment – Scope of Interference by Courts – Normally, in exercise of the power of judicial review, courts should not interfere with the punishment imposed on a delinquent employee by the competent disciplinary authority or substitute their own judgment for that of the authority – The disciplinary authority is the best judge, interference is warranted only where the punishment is so disproportionate that it appears the disciplinary authority has “used a sledgehammer to crack a nut” – A punishment that is strikingly or shockingly disproportionate and not commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct proved would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(Para 9)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Doctrine of Proportionality – Parity in punishment – Higher-ranking officer vis-à-vis subordinates – Respondent, a Senior Manager (MMGS-III), dismissed from service for misconduct, while co-delinquents (officer and gunman) were awarded lesser punishment – High Court interfered granting parity – Held, impermissible – Higher rank carries greater responsibility, trust and accountability – Therefore, harsher punishment for a higher-ranking official cannot be equated with punishment imposed on lower-ranking employees – Grant of parity solely on the ground that co-delinquents received lighter punishment is misconceived -- High Court erred in interfering with the disciplinary authority’s decision – Punishment of dismissal restored – Appeal allowed.

(Para 10-18)

Seventh Central Pay Commission Para 7.4.13(iv)(b) -- Service Law – Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) – Junior Engineers – Completion of four years of service in Level-8 on seniority-cum-suitability basis – Respondents denied NFU on ground that petitioners did not enter service with Grade Pay Rs.4,800/- and their entry level was Rs.4,200/- – Whether such condition can be read into the recommendation – Held, No – Only requirement for NFU is completion of four years of service in Level-8 along with seniority-cum-suitability – Introducing a requirement of entry-level Grade Pay Rs.4,800/- amounts to adding an additional condition not contemplated by the Seventh CPC recommendations – Such interpretation would defeat the benefit intended for Junior Engineers – Denial of NFU therefore not justified – Order granting benefit upheld – Civil Appeal dismissed.

(Para 11-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 88, 92, 312, 325, 426, 120-B, 406, 465, 468, 471, 501 (1) & (2) -- Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Medical negligence -- Consent for surgery – Act done in good faith -- Allegation that doctor performed Orchidectomy instead of Orchidopexy without consent – Consent form signed by father of minor patient mentioned both procedures separated by slash – Medical Review Board opined that Orchidectomy is a recognized alternative procedure in cases of undescended testicle and may be undertaken to prevent malignancy – Director, Medical and Rural Health Services found no fault in consent form – No material showing interpolation, different ink or handwriting in consent form – No allegation of malice against doctor – Continuation of criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of process of Court – Proceedings quashed.

(Para 16-21)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 8, 22 -- Constitution of India, Articles 21, 22(1) – Regular bail – NDPS -- Written communication of grounds of arrest – Supplying the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing before the arrest or, in a given case, under exceptional circumstances, immediately thereafter, is the mandate of the constitutional guarantees provided under Article 22(1) read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Ratio of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh Shah’s case (2026) 1 SCC 500 conclusively holds that any deviation from the above principle would lead to the arrest of the accused being declared illegal entitling such accused to be released forthwith -- Arrest memo showed only oral explanation of grounds of arrest – Accused entitled to release on bail.

(Para 20-23)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149, 201, 452 – Regular bail – Murder -- Material witnesses including the bua of the deceased not supported the prosecution case -- They have not identified the petitioners even when the CCTV footage was put to them during cross-examination -- Whether the remaining evidence available against the petitioners is sufficient to establish their culpability shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the trial -- Petitioners are in custody since 14.06.2024 but only 04 of the 29 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, trial not likely to be concluded anytime soon – Bail allowed.

(Para 5)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B --  Quashing of FIR – Cheating/ Forgery -- Civil dispute -- Allegations primarily related to return of money and alleged partnership without any written agreement -- Dispute was purely civil in nature – Criminal proceedings held to be an abuse of process of law – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 10-17)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 14 Rule 1, Rule 5 – Constitution of India, Article 227 – Framing of issues – Additional issues -- Defendants specifically pleaded ownership and possession of the suit land on the basis of an exchange and sanctioned mutation, which was categorically denied by the plaintiff alleging the exchange to be illegal, null and void and vitiated by fraud -- Failure of the Trial Court to frame issues on such material propositions amounted to material illegality – Direction given to frame additional issues – Revision allowed.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 – Temporary Injunction – Co-sharers – Construction on joint property – Equity – A co-owner who has himself raised construction on a portion of the joint land cannot seek injunction to restrain other co-owners from exercising similar rights over the joint property – Principle that one who seeks equity must act equitably applies.

(Para 6.1)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 5 -- Admission in earlier suit – Effect – Admission that suit land already stood partitioned and parties were in exclusive possession of their respective portions disentitles the petitioner from claiming injunction over the joint property.

(Para 6.1)

C. Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Revision – Interference with appellate order – Additional District Judge has interfered with the trial court’s order on sound reasoning, no illegality, arbitrariness or jurisdictional error -- Consequently, no interference is warranted in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The instant revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Para 6.2)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149 -- Regular Bail – Murder/ Unlawful assembly -- Petitioner was named more than three months after the murder of the victim -- In cases of group violence, individual roles must be specifically established – Mere presence of the petitioner at the scene of crime and his videography of the occurrence cannot impute the same level of culpability as that of the co-accused who allegedly assaulted and killed the victim -- Allegations though serious one, however, for the purpose of grant of bail, Court is required to test whether the material against the petitioner justifies continued pre-trial incarceration bearing nature of evidence and progress of the trial – In custody since 18.10.2023 -- Chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak as no prosecution witness has been examined so far – Bail allowed.

(Para 7)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 20 Rule 12A -- Decree for specific performance – Deposit of balance sale consideration – Time limit -- It obligatory for the Court to specify, the date by which, the purchase money or other sum should be paid by the vendee or lessee -- If the Court had failed to stipulate any particular time period, then it is expected of the decree holder to deposit the same, within a reasonable period of time.

(Para 19, 25)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 20 Rule 12A -- Decree for specific performance – Deposit of balance sale consideration – Time limit -- Delay in deposit of balance sale consideration – Deposit was to be made within a period of two months, from the date of decree -- Trial Court decree challenged in appeal – Stay application was also filed therein, which was not decided -- Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed – An application for seeking deposit of the balance sale consideration file after the decision of the appeal, soon thereafter and by application of doctrine of merger, the appellate decree is to be given effect to, as the time limit is no longer an essence, for the execution of the decree, as such, earlier passed by the trial Court.

(Para 4, 26-29)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 468, 469, 473 -- Limitation for taking cognizance – Misbranded drug complaint – Where identity of accused emerges during investigation, limitation begins from the date when identity of offender becomes known u/s 469(1)(c) Cr.P.C. – Complaint filed within three years from such date held within limitation.

(Para 26-36)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202 – Complaint by Public servant -- Magistrate is not required to examine the complainant and the witnesses, if a public servant is acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty or a Court has made the complaint -- An official complaint was made on authorisation by the State Government -- In this factual setting, Section 202 of the Code would necessarily have to be construed harmoniously with Section 200 of the Code when considering postponement of the issue of process.

(Para 40)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 – Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section 17(b)(c), 18(a)(i), 27(d) -- Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, Rule 96  -- Misbranded drug complaint – High Court’s quashed the complaint -- Respondents-Directors were in the accused-Company’s management, whether or not, they were ‘in charge of’ and ‘responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company’ are questions of fact -- These questions are best left to be determined by the Trial Court, at the appropriate stage -- Impugned Judgment, set aside.

(Para 58, 59)

A. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Section 17 -- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993), Section 19(25) -- Debt Recovery Tribunal – Contempt jurisdiction – DRT is not a court but Tribunal exercising limited jurisdiction without having common law jurisdiction, no statutory power to initiate contempt is available either under 1993 Act or under SARFAESI Act -- Debt Recovery Tribunal has no power to initiate contempt proceedings -- Order initiating contempt proceeding quashed – Debt Recovery Tribunal is free to exercise its powers to implement its orders as per Section 19(25) of 1993 Act.

(Para 22, 23, 30)

B. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Section 17 -- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993), Section 19(25) -- Jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal – Scope – Debt Recovery Tribunal has ordered petitioner-bank to allow operation of cash credit limit to the extent of Rs.30,00,000/- -- Held, Debt Recovery Tribunal has no jurisdiction to regulate relationship of bank and borrower – Jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal in this regard is limited one -- It can only adjudicate acts of bank under provisions of SARFAESI Act and declare the same to be void/valid.

(Para 26-31)

C. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Section 17 -- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993), Section 19(25) -- Implementation of order of DRT – Summoning of Bank official -- Before summoning of any person while exercising powers u/s 19(25) for implementation of orders, Debt Recovery Tribunal is required to give reasons as to how its order has not been implemented and justification/ reasons for summoning any person for implementation of its orders.

(Para 31)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Summoning of handwriting and fingerprint expert -- Belated stage -- Power u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is of a very wide amplitude and can be exercised by the Court at any stage of inquiry or trial if the evidence sought to be adduced appears to be necessary for the just decision of the case -- Merely because the application was moved at a later stage of the trial would not by itself render the order illegal.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 -- Summoning of handwriting and fingerprint expert – Government FSL report already on record – Effect -- Evidentiary value of such testimony would always remain subject to cross-examination and appreciation at the stage of final adjudication -- No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner merely by permitting the examination of the said expert.

(Para 10)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Summoning u/s 311 Cr.P.C – No statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. earlier – Effect -- Proposed witness was not cited in the list of witnesses or that his statement was not recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted as a ground to disallow the application -- Object of Section 311 Cr.P.C is to enable the Court to summon any person as a witness if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case -- Provision is not restricted only to those witnesses whose statements were recorded during investigation -- Trial Court, in its discretion, is competent to summon any such witness if the circumstances of the case so warrant.

(Para 11)

Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 127 – Electricity connection – Disconnection – Opportunity of hearing -- Electricity supply of petitioner-school disconnected without prior notice – Statutory appeal pending and 50% of assessed demand deposited as required under Section 127 – Held disconnection without prior notice not sustainable – Respondents directed to restore electricity supply, while granting liberty to proceed in accordance with law after restoration.

(Para 4-7)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Two separate complaints – Maintainability of -- Common financial transaction -- Seven cheques issued towards repayment of loan – Two cheques issued jointly by both accused while remaining five issued solely by one accused – Cheques dishonoured on different dates and followed by separate statutory notices – Each dishonour giving rise to a distinct cause of action under Section 138 NI Act – Filing of two separate complaints based on different drawers of cheques held legally permissible – Mere fact that cheques arose out of a common transaction not rendering separate complaints impermissible – Conviction upheld, sentences of imprisonment awarded to revisionist in both complaint cases ordered to run concurrently.

(Para 14, 15, 19)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case – Security cheque -- Liability of drawer – Loan by wife – Cheque by husband as security – Accused admitted signatures on cheques and admitted handing over cheques for repayment of loan – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act operating in favour of holder – Drawer issuing cheque towards discharge of liability of another person cannot escape liability merely on ground that debt was not personally incurred – Plea of “security cheque” insufficient in absence of credible rebuttal evidence – Conviction upheld.

(Para 16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 2(xv), 2(xvi), 18, 21 – Quashing of FIR – NDPS – ‘Opium’ – ‘Opium derivative’ – Morphine content detected in recovered contraband is less than the stipulated quantity of 0.2% and the medicines recovered from the spot thus cannot be termed as ‘opium’ or ‘opium derivative’ – No prima facie case made out -- Continuation of proceedings is nothing but an abuse of the process of law -- FIR and the consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 7-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 – Cheque bounce complaint – Expert evidence – Specimen handwriting of stranger/ third party – Permissibility of – Persons whose specimen handwriting is sought are neither the complainant nor the accused in the proceedings and are only witnesses to the case – Being third parties to the litigation, the Court cannot direct them to give specimen handwriting -- Application rightly dismissed.

(Para 5-8, 11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190 -- Summoning of accused – Procedure – Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course – It is not sufficient that the complainant merely produces two witnesses to support the allegations in the complaint to set the criminal law in motion – Order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect due application of mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto – Magistrate must carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and determine whether any offence is prima facie made out – Magistrate may also put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers so as to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations and then examine whether any offence is prima facie committed by any of the accused.

(Para 13)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Quashing of Complaint/ FIR – Inherent powers of High Court -- When an accused seeks quashing of either the FIR or criminal proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious or malicious, the Court is duty bound to examine the matter with greater care -- It will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not -- In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case, over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, and try to read in between the lines – Court is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.

(Para 14)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190, 482 -- Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957), Section 63, 65, 65A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 387 -- Quashing of complaint/ summoning order --  Complaint only contains a bald and unsubstantiated allegations -- Statement of the complainant and witnesses (brother of the complainant) and (cousin of the complainant), do not identify any feature of the script allegedly copied -- Dispute Settlement Committee of SWA comprising experts found no similarity between the film and the script and dismissed the complaint -- Complainant and his witnesses concealed the aforesaid material fact and did not bring the same to the notice of the Court -- No material on record to prima facie conclude that there was any similarity between appellant’s film and complainant’s script – Summoning order held to be passed in mechanical manner and suffers from vice of non-application of mind -- Summoning order and complaint quashed.

(Para 16-20)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27, 54, 59 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Regular bail -- Attempt to murder – Speedy trial – Charges were framed in January 2025 but the prosecution failed to examine any witness and trial made no substantial progress -- Such delay in the conduct of trial, for reasons not attributable to the petitioner, should not operate to his prejudice -- Right to a speedy trial forms an integral part of the guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Taking into consideration the period of actual custody (1 year 7 months) already undergone by the petitioner, the stage of the trial and the lack of progress in recording prosecution evidence, bail allowed.

(Para 3-8)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 326 – Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of FIR – Court may look into the medical evidence and examine the same to see as to whether the conviction u/s 307 of the IPC was possible or not -- Mere registration of an FIR u/s 307 did not foreclose the right of the petitioner/accused to effect a compromise and get the FIR quashed -- An injury which has been “declared dangerous to life” is in fact an injury which is “endangering life” and therefore would be punishable u/s 326 IPC – Therefore, if a conviction was to be recorded, in all probability it would be one u/s 326 IPC and not u/s 307 IPC – FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 7-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Cheating – Forgery -- Agreement to Sell -- Quashing of FIR -- Dispute between the parties arose out of an agreement to sell executed in 2004, and during the pendency of a civil suit for specific performance the accused sold a portion of the land to a third party -- Matter was already subject matter of adjudication before civil courts, and the decree passed therein had been challenged in second appeal where execution proceedings stood stayed -- FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of about 11 years -- Not the case of the complainant that the petitioner had dishonestly induced him to part with property or money by making false representations at the very inception -- No allegations of fabrication or forgery of documents so as to attract offences u/ss 467, 468 or 471 IPC -- Allegations essentially pertained to non-execution of the sale deed and subsequent transfer of property, which would be governed by civil remedies and the doctrine of lis pendens -- Dispute is predominantly civil in nature and criminal proceedings are initiated merely to pressurize the opposite party -- FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 8-13)

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 – Cheating – Forgery – Civil dispute -- Quashing – Inherent powers of High Court -- While considering a prayer to quash an FIR, ordinarily the allegations made therein are to be taken at their face value to assess whether prima facie commission of a cognizable offence is made out or not -- Where the cause espoused in the FIR is essentially of a civil nature, while addressing a quashing petition, the Court must have regard to the attending circumstances and assess whether it has been given cloak of criminal offence and whether proceeding further on the FIR would amount to the abuse of the process of the court/ law -- In making such assessment, the Court may consider not only the contents of the FIR but also the admitted facts / documents recited therein.

(Para 15)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 – Cheating – Forgery – Civil dispute -- Quashing of FIR -- Parties had entered into a Joint Venture Agreement for development of property -- Disputes regarding title to the property/land including suppression of litigation pending in respect thereof, non-fulfilment of contractual obligations, non-refund of security money and furnishing false document arose -- If there was something stark about the dishonest intention on part of one of the parties to the agreement, it would have been reported promptly and not after 10 years -- Merely because a document is not traceable in the office records after several years of its issuance, it cannot be said that the document is forged -- Recourse to appropriate civil remedy was required -- Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law -- FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom quashed.

(Para 16-30)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(x) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 506, 34 -- Enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. – Role of -- An inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. was conducted and a report was submitted – Summoning order is completely silent on the material collected during the inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and lacks any discussion of the essential ingredients of the offences alleged cannot be sustained being a non-speaking order passed without due application of mind -- Summoning of an accused is a serious matter and cannot be done in a mechanical manner and that absence of such indication amounts to non-application of mind – Summoning order set aside, matter remitted back to the learned trial Court for fresh consideration.

(Para 5-8)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Accident by Jeep/transport vehicle -- Driving Licence for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) –Liability of Insurance Company – No material on record to show vehicle exceeded 7500 kg gross vehicle weight – A person holding a valid driving licence to drive a “Light Motor Vehicle” is competent to drive a transport vehicle of that class, and no separate endorsement is required -- Insurance Company is liable to indemnify and pay compensation.

(Para 11-18)