Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 384, 506, 420, 120-B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Extortion – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2023 and none of the 08 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far -- Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon -- Further incarceration is not required, moreso, when a co-accused has been granted the concession of bail – Bail allowed.

(Para 4-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Acquittal -- Appellant/ complainant happened to be the sole eyewitness but he had neither seen anyone killing his son nor he had deposed that he had seen anyone burning the victim -- He has not deposed anything as to why he had not tried to intervene and save his son from assault or stop the accused persons from taking him away in the car -- He himself had not received any injuries – Appellant/ complainant stated in the FIR that the accused assaulted his son with a knife and iron rod -- He didn’t mention about the use of a pistol by the accused -- However, the police have recovered empty cartridge -- Cause of death as per postmortem is also firing from close range --  Presence of the appellant/ complainant even during the incident appears to be doubtful – Acquittal, upheld.

(Para 8-14)

Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Departmental proceedings – Criminal proceedings – Pendency of – Effect of -- No further proceedings have taken place in the same in spite of lapse of more than 6 years on account of interim stay – In case the criminal case does not proceed, then departmental proceedings, even if they have been stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to be concluded at an early date – It would not be in the interest of justice to keep the departmental proceedings pending any further – Writ petition dismissed. Capt. M. Paul Anthony’s case Ltd., 1999(3) SCC 679 relied.

(Para 12, 13)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11, Order 6 Rule 17 – Rejection of plaint – Amendment of plaint – Ad-valorem court fee – From the plaint, it could not be made out as to whether the petitioner is in actual physical possession of the suit property -- It is not clear as to whether the petitioner is in possession of the suit property or as to if he has also sought relief of possession of the said property – Revision dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file an application seeking amendment of the plaint with regard to relief regarding the suit property -- Trial Court should decide afresh the question of Court fees on the basis of the amended pleadings in the plaint.

(Para 4-7)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3, 14A – Offence u/s 3 of SC ST Act – Anticipatory bail -- Appellants had addressed the complainant as “dhedh” -- From the submissions made, it would be debatable as to whether the offence under Section-3 of the “Act” is made out or not -- Said issue can be finally settled and adjudicated by the Trial Court during the course of trial -- Appellants had surrendered before the Investigating Officer and were admitted to interim bail by him -- Custodial interrogation of the appellant(s) is not required by the Investigating Agency and no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellants behind the bars -- Appeals allowed, interim orders ordered to be made absolute -- Appellants shall abide by the conditions as specified under Section 438 Cr. PC.

(Para 8)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 16 Rule 14, 21, Order 18 Rule 13A – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 120, 137, 138, 139, 154, 155 – Parties to suit – Witnesses -- Function performed by either a witness or a party to a suit when in the witness box is the same -- Examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination are all facets of a trial which can be availed by a party or the adversary, for both the party to a suit as a witness and also for other witnesses called by the party -- Held, there is no difference between a party to a suit as a witness and a witness simpliciter.

(Para 13-16, 32)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 14(4), Order 8 Rule 1-A(4)(a), Order 13 Rule 1(3) – Withholding of documents -- Production of documents for both a party to the suit and a witness as the case may be, at the stage of cross-examination, is permissible within law.

(Para 17-32)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 -- Arguments without pleadings -- It is settled law that what is not pleaded cannot be argued, as for the purposes of adjudication, it is necessary for the other party to know the contours of the case it is required to meet -- It is equally well settled that the requirement of having to plead a particular argument does not include exhaustively doing so.

(Para 28)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366A -- Writ of habeas corpus -- Muslim law -- Marriage of minor girl – Validity of – Allegation of kidnapping/ procuration of minor girl -- Police protection -- Since the marriage is prima facie valid as per the Mohammedan Personal Law, petitioner/ girl being above the age of 15 years i.e., age of puberty and petitioner/ boy also being of marriageable age, and they having performed Nikaah as per their wish, so the custody of petitioner/ girl is directed to be handed over to petitioner/ boy -- Police will be at liberty to investigate the FIR u/s 363, 366A IPC in accordance with law -- Official respondents directed to keep on providing necessary protection to the petitioners as and when required, after assessing threat perception to their life and liberty.

(Para 16, 18)

A. Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 -- Custody of child – Welfare of child -- What is 'welfare of the child' depends upon several factors -- It has to be measured not only in terms of money and physical comfort, but also in view of the age of the child and the manner, in which, 'needs' can be fulfilled, more particularly, moral and ethical aspects of the shaping of the minor's personality -- Legal right or the financial affluence is not decisive, but the welfare of the minor is decisive for the claim of the custody.

(Para 8)

B. Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 -- Custody of child – Wish/ Desire/ Welfare of child -- It has to be borne in mind that the question ‘what is the wish/  desire of the child’ is different and distinct from the question ‘what would be in the best interest of the child’ --  Certainly, the wish/ desire of the child can be ascertained through interaction but then, the question as to ‘what would be in the best interest of the child’ is a matter to be decided by the Court, while taking into account, all the relevant circumstances.

(Para 9)

C. Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 -- Custody of child – Welfare of child -- Unless and until, there is proven bad conduct of one of the parent, which makes him/ her unworthy to claim the custody of the child concerned, the question can and shall be decided, solely looking into the question as to, ‘what would be the best interest of the child concerned’.

(Para 9)

D. Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), Section 25 -- Custody of girl child – Visiting rights -- Aspect of age of the child weighs in the mind of the Court – Mother is qualified doctor, girl child being of 10-11 years is passing through the formative stage of life -- At this stage, the mother can be the best friend, guide and mentor for the growing daughter -- She is already residing with the mother and therefore, no further change in the arrangement, already existing, shall be beneficial to the child -- Girl child allowed to meet the petitioner, her father, twice a month.

(Para 10-16)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Abetment of suicide -- Two suicide notes -- Suicide notes recovered from the person of the deceased mentions that he had loaned Rs. 3,00,000/- to the respondent-accused seven months ago and since he was demanding his money back, she had been blackmailing him -- Different pens and inks were used in writing the suicide notes -- There is no proximity between the alleged act of the accused-respondent and suicide of the deceased – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 7-16)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Abetment of suicide -- Appeal against acquittal -- Power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt – No perversity or illegality pointed out – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 14-16)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320, 397, 401 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Compromise after conviction at revisional stage – Acquittal of accused -- Waiver of cost of 15% -- Imposition of costs would be a matter of discretion of the Court -- Petitioner is a poor person, 15% of the cheque amount towards cost(s) of litigation can be waived off in the interest of justice -- Petition allowed, impugned judgments/order(s) set aside and petitioner acquitted.

(Para 9-11)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delay in salary – Interest thereupon -- Petitioner was not paid his salary for the period from July, 1992 to August, 1999 and the said salary released only vide cheque dated 05.04.2001 – Held, a person who is performing his duties has a right to receive his salary as and when it is due -- Withholding such salary would be unjustified and interest thereto is required to be paid to the petitioner -- Respondents directed to release the interest on the due salary @12% p.a. as it existed in the year 2001.

(Para 7, 8)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delay in gratuity – Interest thereupon -- Gratuity payment, which was required to be paid in the year 1999, has been paid to the petitioner in February, 2020 -- Interest thereto @ 9% p.a. will have to be paid, as the amount has been wrongfully kept by the respondents with them to which the petitioner was entitled at the relevant time.

(Para 9)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16, 28 -- Decree of specific performance – Extension of time – Rescinding of agreement -- Court can grant extension of time after passing decree for specific performance of agreement and the Trial Court has its power and jurisdiction to deal with such matters till the decree is fully satisfied -- Petitioner did not give notice to the judgment-debtor to receive the balance sale consideration -- He did not move any application for permission to deposit the balance sale consideration -- Petitioner failed to pay the balance sale consideration despite getting so many adjournments -- Although order of rescinding the contract for sale of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed, is a harsh order but decree-holder intentionally failed to pay the balance amount of consideration – Held, the learned Court below is justified to rescind the agreement – Order upheld.

(Para 12, 13)

Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Section 17 – Limitation – Fraud – Suit for possession/ joint land -- Judgment and decree of 1982 – Challenged in 2014 -- It is a positive case of the plaintiffs that they got the knowledge of the alleged fraudulent decree in the year 2013 -- Defendants failed to lead the evidence to prove that the plaintiffs had prior knowledge of the decree --  Both the Courts, on appreciation of evidence, had found that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not barred by limitation -- Plaintiffs are co-sharers/ co-owners with the defendants, can be granted a decree for joint possession and can apply for delivery of the actual possession after the land is partitioned – Decree modified.

(Para 5-13)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Brother and sister as claimant – Permissibly of -- In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father.

(Para 5)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Siblings as claimant – Permissibly of -- Siblings of the victim were older and were married with their own respective families -- In these circumstances, they being dependent on the victim’s earnings is unlikely particularly when the victim resided separately -- Tribunal and the High Court should not have considered the three older married siblings, to be dependent on the deceased victim -- Compensation awarded to the married siblings is therefore found to be unmerited -- Appeal allowed by setting aside the impugned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as upheld by the High Court under the impugned judgment.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 438 – Cheating -- Anticipatory bail -- Habitual offender – 16 complaints/ FIR pending – Petitioners have not only cheated the present complainant but several other criminal complaints have been filed against them -- Apart from that,  petitioner No.2 was declared a proclaimed person and four FIRs were registered against him in this regard -- Thus, there are chances that the petitioners may abscond from the process of law -- Custodial interrogation of the petitioners would be required in the case – Petition dismissed.

(Para 1, 6-9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 193 -- Summoning of additional accused – Evaluation of evidence – Requirement of -- Trial Court summoned the petitioners u/s 193 Cr.P.C. without evaluating the evidence and assessment of the material available against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudging whether such material, more or less, carry the same weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already facing trial – Impugned order set aside matter remanded back.

(Para 7-9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 193 -- Summoning of additional accused – Power of -- FIR is not an encyclopaedia and mere statement of the complainant reiterating the contents of FIR/ complaint not substantiated by any credible material, cannot be a ground to invoke the power to summon an additional accused under Section 193 Cr.P.C.

(Para 9)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 193 -- Summoning of additional accused – Evaluation of evidence – Requirement of – Trial Court has not gone into the statements of witnesses attached with the final report before passing the impugned order --- Without any reasoning that there was some “evidence”  on the basis of which it can be gathered that they appear to be guilty of the offence and the said evidence can be utilised for corroboration and to support the allegations levelled in the FIR -- Impugned order set aside matter remanded back.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Cruelty to wife -- Anticipatory bail – Non-performing of conjugal rights – Ground of -- High Court dismissed the petition by observing that in view of the adamant attitude of the appellant in not resuming the conjugal life with the opposite party No.2 in the house of the appellant, where the opposite party No.2 was staying, his petition could not be considered – Held, neither such condition should have been imposed by the High Court while granting an anticipatory bail, nor such could be a ground for rejection of the petition filed by the appellant – Order set aside, in case of arrest of the appellant, he ordered to be released on bail.

(Para 5, 6)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Respondent proceeded against ex parte -- Agreement specifically provided for resolution of dispute by way of arbitration -- A dispute having arisen, the petitioner invoked notice and served a notice but to no avail -- Keeping in view the specific provision for resolution of disputes by arbitration in the agreement and the respondent not having chosen to contest the petition, the petition allowed – Sole Arbitrator appointed.

(Para 2-5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act have culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint – Order declaring the petitioner proclaimed person and the order for registration of FIR u/s 174-A IPC quashed.

(Para 9-13)

A. Disaster Management Act, 2005 (53 of 2005), Section 22 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Covid-19 proclamation – Non-wearing of mask -- When the proclamation was in force, the petitioner was noticed on a public street in the morning at 6.30 am, and when the police officials asked him to wear a mask, he did not cooperate and argued with the police -- It is not alleged that the petitioner was in somebody else's company -- Petitioner was walking alone, so even if he was not wearing a mask, he did not commit any offence that would violate Section 188 IPC – FIR quashed.

(Para 9-12)

B. Disaster Management Act, 2005 (53 of 2005), Section 22 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Covid-19 proclamation – Non-wearing of mask -- It is not the complainant’s case that the petitioner in any manner was instrumental in causing any injury, that is, by spreading the Covid 19 -- Further there is no evidence like medical record that he was tested for Covid or had any visible symptoms thereof -- Thus, in the absence of any harm or obstruction caused to anybody, not wearing of mask would not tantamount to violation of Section 188 IPC -- FIR quashed.

(Para 12)

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 7(1) -- Encroachment on public street -- Eviction – Maintainability of petition -- Section 7(1) of the Act of 1961 shows that an application for putting the Gram Panchayat in possession can be filed by the concerned Panchayat or by the officer duly authorized in this behalf by the State Government -- In application, respondent no.4 neither averred that he had been authorized by the Gram Panchayat or by the State Government to file an application on behalf of the Gram Panchayat nor any material was produced to show that he was authorized by the State Government to invoke the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Act of 1961 – Therefore, the application was not maintainable -- Impugned order quashed and set aside -- Liberty reserved to the BDPO, or to the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat concerned, to move an application u/s 7 of the Act of 1961, before the Collector concerned.

(Para 2, 7-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 482 – Bail in 41 FIRs – Common surety – Bail bond – Petitioner was involved in 41 cases of similar nature – Petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, however, even after a lapse of considerable period, the petitioner has not been released on bail on account of his inability to give separate sureties/personal bonds in each and every case –  Held, condition of furnishing a surety in each and every case separately, would be highly onerous – Trial Court/ Illaqua Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate directed to release the petitioner on bail in all the 41 cases on his executing one personal bond, in each case, as well as four common sureties, which would hold good for all the 41 cases.

(Para 11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Bail – Life and liberty -- Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception – This principle finds its roots in one of the most distinguished fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Though the underlying objective behind detention of a person is to ensure easy availability of an accused for trial, without any inconvenience, however, in case the presence of an accused can be secured otherwise, then detention is not compulsory.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Bail – Speedy trial -- Life and liberty -- Right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person -- However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, which is “the presumption of innocence”, besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.

(Para 6)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail -- Petitioner is involved in two other criminal cases, however, petitioner has been granted the concession of bail in one case, the other FIR is under RP (UP) Act -- Co-accused, from whom mobile has been recovered, has been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court -- Trial is at its initial stage and is not likely to conclude anytime soon, as out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, none has yet been examined -- Therefore, keeping the petitioner behinds the bars, who has undergone incarceration of 6 months 6 day would serve no purpose – Bail allowed.

(Para 10)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Payment of pension after death – Recovery of -- Pension was being paid by the respondent-Bank after the death of the husband of the petitioner -- Said error was attributable to the bank only and not to the petitioner -- Once there is no misrepresentation on part of the petitioner to get an amount, the recovery being done from her is totally contrary to the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rafiq Masih’s case Civil Appeal No.11527 of 2014.

(Para 8)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Payment of pension after death – Recovery of – Natural justice -- No show cause notice whatsoever has been given to the petitioner before effecting the recovery -- Respondent have taken in writing from the petitioner that her family pension will not be released till she exceeds to the recovery --  Any letter given contrary to the entitlement under law cannot be enforced by the Bank so as to effect the recovery from the petitioner -- Recovery being done from the petitioner set aside -- Any recovery already made be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of two months.

(Para 11, 12)

Punjab Rent Act, 1995 (13 of 2012), Section 24 (1)(c) -- Leave to defend – Limitation -- No application seeking leave to defend was filed by the petitioners within stipulated period of 15 days of service of notice -- Even the application seeking setting aside of ex-parte proceedings was also filed much beyond the aforesaid statutory limit -- Rent Act being complete code, the provisions of Limitation Act would not be applicable to the eviction petition filed by the respondent – Rent Controller rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners seeking setting aside of ex-parte proceedings.

(Para 10, 11)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Preserving of call details and tower location – Right of accused -- Preserving and requisitioning of the call details and tower location details would be necessary, otherwise the same would be lost forever -- Right of accused to invoke the provisions of Section 91 Cr.P.C. for obtaining documents in support of his defence has been recognized by the Constitutional Courts -- Legislative intent behind enactment of Section 91 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that no cogent material or evidence involved in the issue remains undiscovered in unearthing the true facts during investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceedings.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Preserving of call details and tower location – Right of accused -- While passing the appropriate direction for preserving and production of call details/tower location details under Section 91 Cr.P.C. would violate the right to privacy of the police officials but the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in ensuring free and fair investigation/trial would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials.

(Para 8)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 65A, 65B -- Preserving of call details and tower location – Right of accused -- Denial of an adequate opportunity to the accused by non-production of the electronic record, which is admissible under Section 65-A and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in criminal trial, would amount to miscarriage of justice -- Power under 91 Cr.P.C. must be exercised for production of such evidence, which would assist the Court in discovering the truth in the pursuit of justice.

(Para 9)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Preserving of call details and tower location – Right of accused -- As principles of natural justice are integral part of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, any denial of the best available evidence or effective and substantial hearing to accused in proving defence would amount to denial of free and fair trial.

(Para 10)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Withdrawal of appointment of deceased employee – Permissibility of -- No order causing prejudice to the dead employee could have been passed by the respondents, muchless, withdrawing the appointment which was given to the employee concerned after due verification in the year 2008 -- Impugned order is contrary to the settled principle of law, set aside -- Respondents  directed to grant the petitioner all the benefits which the widow of the deceased employee will get including the family pension as well as the ex gratia financial assistance with interest @ 6% per annum. Shiksha Devi’s case, CWP-21917-2016 decided on 02.08.2022 relied.

(Para 10-13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 317(2) -- Splitting of trial – Out of 31 accused presence of some of accused could not be precured -- Only 20 out of 31 accused persons were attending the Court -- When the High Court permitted splitting of the trial, two important aspects were not noted -- The first one was that the learned Magistrate was not satisfied that the police have made sufficient efforts to procure the presence of all the accused -- Second is order of further investigation – Therefore, this was not the stage at which the High Court could have permitted splitting of the case – Impugned order set aside.

(Para 2-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439, 482 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Regular bail -- Interim bail – High Court was of the view that prolonged incarceration with no prospect of the trial coming to an end makes a case for the grant of bail -- High Court granted bail only for 45 days by describing it as an interim bail -- But after granting the interim bail finally disposed of the bail application – Held, if an order granting interim bail was to be passed, the bail application should have been kept pending – When a Court concludes that the accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial, granting bail only for a limited duration is illegal -- Such orders violate the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- It puts an additional burden on the litigant as he is forced to file a fresh bail application for an extension of the bail granted earlier -- Appeal allowed, by modifying the impugned order, appellant enlarged on bail until the final disposal of the case.

(Para 4-9)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to suicide – Quashing of summoning order -- Borrowing of Rs, 60,000/- -- Incident in shop of the first appellant threatening and assaulting complainant and her husband was on 15th June 2017 -- After that, notice u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was issued by “S” to the deceased on 27th June 2017 -- Suicide note was written three days after that, on 30th June 2017 -- Deceased committed suicide three days thereafter -- No allegation that any act was done by the appellants in the close proximity to the date of suicide -- By no stretch of the imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to instigation to commit suicide -- Offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC not made out -- Continuation of prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law -- Summoning order quashed.

(Para 8-13)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107 – Abetment to suicide -- Mens-rea – Instigation -- To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide --  Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide -- The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide -- Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide.

(Para 9)

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 20 -- Suit for specific performance – Re-conveyance deed -- In the plaint, the appellants have asserted that notwithstanding the execution of the sale deed and release deed, no right, title and interest in the suit property was transferred to the respondent and rights of the first appellant in respect of the suit property continued to exist and the appellants continued to be in possession -- Held, there was no occasion for the appellants to seek specific performance compelling the respondent to execute re-conveyance deed inasmuch as, even according to the case of the appellants as pleaded in the plaint and in evidence that the respondent had no right, title and interest in the suit property -- High Court was right in holding that the discretion under Section 20 of the 1963 Act ought not to have been exercised in favour of the appellants – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 13-17)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 , 173 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Judgment of criminal Court is not binding in the proceedings before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -- Appellant/ claimant when stepped into the witness box before the ld. JMIC as PW5 did not support the prosecution case, he was declared hostile -- He was also confronted with his statement before the police to which he claimed that he never suffered the said statement to the police -- Other two witnesses who are the brothers of claimant also did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile -- They also denied to have given statement before the police – They did not identify driver of the said offending pickup vehicle -- Whereas while stepping into the witness box before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as PW1 he alleged rash and negligent driving on the part of the same driver/ accused who was respondent No.1 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Statement of claimant is self-contradictory and the same cannot be relied upon – Claim petition dismissed by Tribunal not require any interference – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 15)

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Writ jurisdiction – Application u/s 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 allowed -- Appeal would lie before the Appellate Authority -- Petitioners sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file the said appeal before the Appellate Authority -- In case the petitioners file the said appeal within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order then the same be not dismissed solely on the ground of limitation.

(Para 1-5)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1 -- Written statement not filed – Defence struck off -- Since written statement is a basic document to substantiate the cause of a particular litigating party, petitioner deserves to be permitted to file written statement and reply to stay application for which, of course she can be burdened with costs -- Impugned order set aside -- Trial court directed to grant one effective opportunity subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-.

(Para 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Suspension of sentence in appeal – Deposit of 20% compensation amount – Deposit of minimum 20% amount is not an absolute rule, not accommodating any exception -- When Appellate Court considers the prayer u/s 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused, it is always open for the Appellate Court to consider whether it is an exceptional case, which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/ compensation amount -- In case, the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded.

(Para 9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 144 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Prohibition order u/s 144 Cr.P.C. – Violation of – FIR u/s 188 IPC  -- Peaceful protest -- More than 100 persons had died in the State of Punjab due to illicit and spurious liquor -- Being public representatives, the petitioners were peacefully going to meet the Chief Minister of Punjab to bring his attention to their grievances -- Petitioners had every right to protest democratically, and they did so in peace -- Merely bringing the Chief Minister of Punjab's attention to an important issue through a peaceful protest does not amount to an offence under section 188 IPC.

(Para 11-13)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 144 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Mens rea – Peaceful protest -- It is sufficient that the offender knows of the order they disobey and that such disobedience produced or is likely to produce harm -- State has not gathered any evidence to primafacie establish the essential ingredients and what disobedience the petitioner caused in this regard -- An offence u/s 188 of the IPC is not made out.

(Para 17)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 144, 173, 190, 195 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 – FIR u/s 188 IPC  -- Bar of Section 195 CrPC – Prosecution launched on police report u/s 173 (2) CrPC for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 188 IPC, whereas section 195(1)(a)(i) bars the Court from taking cognizance of any offence punishable u/s 188 of the IPC unless there is written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of their lawful order -- Police report, being not a complaint, could not have been made the basis for taking cognizance of the offence u/s 188 of the IPC, and the concerned Court had no jurisdiction to summon the accused -- Order of dismissal of the application for discharge violates the mandatory provision of section 195(1) of CrPC, 1973 -- Complaint and the police report (Challan) u/s 173 CrPC filed in FIR quashed and set aside.

(Para 18-26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 446 – Forfeiture of bail bond -- Surety of Rs.2 lacs -- Convict has surrendered -- Petitioners are not stated to be professional sureties, there is nothing to suggest that they had facilitated the escape of the convict or were aware of the likelihood of his absconding -- A lenient view can be taken in the facts and circumstances of the case – Amount of Rs.25000/- ordered to be paid by petitioner/ Surety.

(Para 2, 11-13)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- NDPS case -- Jump of bail – Wrong date noted by clerk of counsel --  Petitioner directed to surrender before the Special Court within a period of 10 days and on his appearance, he shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

(Para 2-6)

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (39 of 1987), Section 22-C(4) to (7), Section 22-C(8) – Permanent Lok Adalat – Conciliation proceedings – Necessity of -- No conciliation proceeding initiated by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) before passing award -- Award set aside, matter remanded to the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) for fresh adjudication as per the procedure prescribed by law.

(Para 4, 5)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Compassionate appointment – Medical opinion -- Candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the medical grounds -- Petitioner was examined two times -- On both the occasions, he was examined by different set of doctors and both times he was found patient of hypertension -- It is settled proposition of law that High Court cannot substitute opinion of medical experts -- Respondent cannot be asked to consider candidature of the petitioner on the basis of reports of civil hospital – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 6)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320, 397, 401 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Conviction by trial Court affirmed by Appellate Court – Acquittal on compromise --  Once a settlement is being effected, then in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 320 Cr.P.C., the accused ought to be acquitted as the offence stands compounded -- Revision petition allowed and the judgment of Appellate Court and judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court set aside -- Petitioner acquitted.

(Para 8-12)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 8 Rule 1 -- Written statement not filed – Defence struck off -- It is always convenient for the Court to decide the controversy before it, after acknowledging the stand of both the sides -- By granting permission to file written statement, there is no wastage of time because proceeding in suit is still at the stage of service of notice upon defendant No.2 – One more effective opportunity granted to the petitioner/ defendant No.1 for filing his written statement and reply to the stay application.

(Para 10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case --  Review of compensation – First Appeal -- Tribunal not considered the claim with regard to compensation to be awarded to the widow -- Award rectified by in review application -- Instead of allowing the error to perpetuate, the same has been rectified -- If the petitioner has any grievance, she has the option to file an FAO.

(Para 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 386, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190, 482 – Quashing of FIR – After filing of the challan, charges have already been framed by the trial Court – Petitioner has already filed criminal complaint so as to put forth his stand – No justification for quashing of the FIR.

(Para 3, 4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Punjab Travel Professionals’ Regulation Act, 2012, Section 13 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Compromise quashing of FIR – Parties  have settled their dispute amicably -- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive -- It will be in the interest of justice, if the settlement reached between the parties is accepted -- FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 2, 7, 8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail – Recovery of 2400 tablets of ‘Parvion Spas’ -- Petitioner in custody since 28.07.2021 -- Trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future -- Court deemed it appropriate to allow the petition by dispensing with the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Bail allowed.

(Para 3, 8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 7, 138 – Cheque bounce complaint – Prosecution of -- Drawer of cheque – Joint account -- Though, the cheque has been drawn on a joint bank account of the petitioner and her husband, but the cheque in question has been signed by her husband only and the liability regarding the dishonour of the cheque can be fastened on the drawer of the cheque -- Mere fact that the petitioner happens to be the spouse of the co-accused is hardly sufficient to condemn her as co-accused with him – Complaint and summoning order quashed qua the petitioner/ wife.

(Para 8-12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143A – Cheque bounce complaint -- Interim compensation -- The Court had wide discretion to grant the interim maintenance, which could vary from 1% to 20% -- Trial Court granted the interim compensation in very casual and routine manner – No reasons recorded for granting 20% of the amount of the cheque in question as interim compensation – Matter remanded back to the trial Court to reconsider the issue regarding the payment of interim compensation.

(Para 9, 10)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Recovery from retired employee/ due to retire within 1 year -- Excess payment was made by way of an increment which the petitioner was not entitled -- No recovery should be made from retired employees or employees who are due to retire within 1 year of the order of recovery -- Respondent has effected recovery from the retiral benefits of the petitioner -- Respondent shall refund the said amount within 2 months -- Impugned order quashed and writ petition allowed. Rafiq Masih’s case (2015) 4 SCC 334 & Tara Chand’s case 2013 (4) SCT 251 (P&H) relied.

(Para 2, 7-10)

A. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 -- Senior citizen case – Cancellation of transfer  deed – Subsequent purchaser during pendency of proceedings -- In case a person is a purchaser of the suit property during the pendency of a case then the said purchase is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and the said person, at best, can only raise pleas which are available to the seller(s) in whose shoes he has stepped into.

(Para 7)

B. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007), Section 23 -- Senior citizen case – Cancellation of transfer deed – Plea that petitioners are now ready to take care of respondent No.3 is apparently an afterthought -- Once the necessary ingredients of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, are met and the order is passed in accordance with law, the said plea of the petitioners would not call for setting aside the said order.

(Para 8)