A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 500 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3), 173, 199 – FIR for defamation – Permissibility of -- Whether there can be a Chargesheet u/s 500 IPC -- Procedure for initiating any Complaint for defamation, has been specifically provided u/s 199 Cr.P.C – FIR could not have been registered u/s 500 IPC, in view of the express bar u/s 199 Cr.P.C. -- Cognizance for the offence u/s 500 IPC could have been undertaken only on a Complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C filed by the “Person Aggrieved”; no cognizance for the offence u/s 500 IPC can be taken on an FIR -- Furthermore, even the contents of the Complaint do not prima facie establish any case of defamation -- Summoning Orders set aside.

(Para 38-43, 57, 58)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 500 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3), 199 – FIR for defamation – Offences under other Sections also – Permissibility of -- Irrespective of there being other Sections involved in the FIR or not, the cognizance u/s 500 could have been only on the Complaint and not on the FIR.

(Para 45)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 499, 500 -- Defamation -- In order to constitute “defamation? u/s 499, there must be an “imputation” with the “intention” to harm the reputation of the person about whom such imputation is made -- It would have to be shown that the accused intended or knew or had the reason to believe that such imputation would harm the reputation of the complainant or that he would be directly or indirectly suffered by it.

(Para 52)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 499, 500 – Defamation – Essential proof – To attract the offence of defamation there must be publication of imputation intending to harm reputation of the person who felt defamed -- The person, involving whom such publication is made, must prove that in estimation of others his moral or intellectual character is lowered down as a result of such false imputation -- Further, to prove the said aspect it is the duty cast on the complainant to lead all necessary evidence before whom his image is ill-effected and lowered -- Albeit the complainant-PW.1 in his private complaint and the evidence stated that, the imputations as per Exs.P1(a) to P1(d) sullied his reputation, however, that in itself would not suffice to attract the offence under Section 499 of IPC -- The damage of the reputation can be ascertained and determined by other persons’ estimation.

(Para 13)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque bounce complaint – Vicarious liability of Director of company --  Role of Director – Pleadings in complaint – Requirement of -- Administrative role of each director would be within the special knowledge of the company or the director of the firm and it is for them to establish that they were not in charge of the affairs of the company -- There is no obligation on the complainant to plead in the complaint as to matters within the special knowledge of the company or the directors or firm about the specific role attributed to them in the company.

(Para 38)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 239 -- Discharge of accused – Discharge under the CrPC is salutary – Magistrate is under an obligation to discharge the accused where, from the chargesheet and the appended documents, it is noticed that the trial of such charges is worthless -- Section 239 of the CrPC, which deals with the trial of warrant cases by a magistrate, confines the examination to the final report and documents sent with it u/s 173 of the CrPC -- Allegations in the FIR, transformed through investigation and the collection of evidence, are shaped into a final report -- This receives the attention of the magistrate to decide whether the charge so presented against the accused is groundless -- Magistrate neither acts as a post office nor conducts a mini-trial of the report and the documents before it while exercising the power u/s 239 of the CrPC.

(Para 26, 26.1, Para 26.2)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 239, 397, 401 – Discharge of accused – Revisional powers -- Since the order of discharge is amenable to the jurisdiction of the revisional court, the order of discharge must speak for itself, and only a warranted conclusion is arrived at by the magistrate -- Deviation from the discretionary limits attracts the supervisory jurisdiction of the revisional courts.

(Para 26)

A. Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, Rule 14 -- Appointment as judicial officer -- Employment by irregular or improper means -- Non-disclosure of former government service – Effect of -- Appellant submitted her resignation as teacher on 25.10.2018 much prior to her interview, which was conducted on 02.11.2018 -- Question of disclosing the past government service is certainly not a material irregularity or a serious misconduct for which she ought to be discharged from service especially when she has successfully completed her training without any blemish -- Not a case where the appellant has suppressed criminal antecedents, which may materially affect her commitment to the judiciary – Held, non-disclosure of past government service cannot be a ground for discharging the appellant -- Show cause notice as well as the order of discharge set aside.

(Para 17-21, 31)

B. Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, Rule 44, 45, 46 – Constitution of India, Article 14, 16 – Appointment of judicial officer -- Discharge of probationer – Arbitrary or discriminatory discharge – Effect of -- Even though a probationer has no right to hold a post, it would not imply that the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution could be violated inasmuch as there cannot be any arbitrary or discriminatory discharge or an absence of application of mind in the matter of assessment of performance and consideration of relevant materials -- Thus, in deciding whether, in a given case, a termination was by way of punishment or not, the courts have to look into the substance of the matter and not the form.

(Para 26)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 415 -- NDPS case – Appeal from conviction – Sentence reduced -- Recovery of 500 grams of opium -- Appellant convicted for having in possession of contraband, attracting the offence for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed -- Appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 01 year 08 months and 12 days -- FIR was lodged on 30.04.2019 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last about 06 years and desires to live a peaceful life – Sentence reduced to already undergone.

(Para 8-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 37 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – NDPS Case -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 3 Kg 500 grams of Sulfa (charas) – Regular bail -- FIR on secret information -- Alleged recovery from the public place -- Petitioner is behind bars for 01 year, 05 months and 02 days -- No criminal antecedents as he is not involved in any other case – Accused has a right of speedy trial -- Only 02 prosecution witnesses have been partially examined, out of total 17 prosecution witnesses -- Veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial – Bail allowed.

(Para 4-10)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 397(B)(2), 34 – Robbery – Regular bail -- Petitioner is behind the bars for a period of 01 year 04 months and 02 days -- Involvement of accused in other criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny him the concession of bail -- Trial is at the stage of prosecution witness and out of 19 PWs, only 01 has been examined till date -- Further detention without the prospect of conclusion of trial in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Bail allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar -- Acquittal in criminal case – Effect of -- Although the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal cases, however, once a person with clean image/ antecedents available, then no fault can be found in the choice of the Collector in appointing respondent No.4 as lambardar.

(Para 8)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Choice of Collector – Interference in – Permissibility of -- In the matter of appointment of lambardar, the choice of the Collector is not to be lightly interfered with even if two views are possible unless there is patent illegality or perversity therein.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaints – FIR u/s 420 IPC by accused against complainant party – Quashing of FIR – Finding recorded by the jurisdictional criminal court in 138 NI Act proceedings between the parties would be binding to both the parties in any subsequent proceedings involving the same issue – Respondent cannot maintain a prosecution on the basis of allegations which were precisely his defence in the earlier proceedings wherein he was an accused -- Criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed on this ground alone -- Impugned criminal proceedings instituted against the appellant for offences u/s 420 of the IPC, quashed.

(Para 12, 20-25)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Transfer of employee – Challenge to -- Writ jurisdiction -- It is settled proposition of law that scope of interference in transfer matters is very limited -- It is the employer or higher authorities who have to decide posting of employees -- The Court cannot determine place of posting of employees -- The authorities, in the interest of administration as well public interest has to transfer its employees -- Transfer is an integral part of service -- There is no evidence disclosing that the petitioner has been transferred with mala fide intention or there is violation of policy – Writ petition dismissed.

(Para 4-7)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 -- Eviction petition under rent law -- Amendment of reply – Due diligence – Trial is at fag end -- Case was fixed for arguments, but the arguments were not addressed, even after availing almost 10 opportunities and only thereafter,  the application was filed -- Respondent not able to show that in spite of due diligence, the respondent could not raise the pleas before the commencement of the trial – Proposed amendment application is not bonafide and is only a malicious attempt on the part of the respondent-tenant to prolong the lis – Application for amendment of reply dismissed.

(Para 13-18)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 186, 351, 353, 356 – Obstruction in discharge of official duties – Criminal force – Assault – Use of criminal force or assault on a public servant is essential to attract Section 353 IPC -- Physical movement of the labourers would not amount to use of force far less criminal force on a public servant – Offence u/s 353 IPC not made out -- Obstruction to a public servant must be done with the requisite mens rea i.e. to prevent the latter from discharging his official duty -- Members of the social organization were of the impression that bonded labourers/ children ought to be interrogated at a neutral place i.e. Police Station whereas the officers wanted to interrogate them at the site -- When profile of the allegations emerging from the factual matrix of the case renders existence of mens rea patently absurd or inherently improbable, such prosecution is liable to be quashed as an abuse of process of law.

(Para 22-28)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 186, 353 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 155(2) -- Obstruction in discharge of official duties – Non-cognizable offence – Procedure of -- Section 186 is a non-cognizable offence and in absence of ingredients of Section 353 (cognizable offence) disclosed in the FIR, prior permission of Magistrate under Section 155 (2) Cr.PC was necessary to register FIR -- No such permission was obtained rendering the registration of FIR and ensuing investigation bad in law.

(Para 31)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 186 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 195 -- Obstruction in discharge of official duties – Non-cognizable offence – Procedure of -- Cognizance of offence u/s 186 IPC was taken on a police report in breach of Section 195 Cr.PC -- Section 195, inter alia, provides no court shall take cognizance of offence u/s 186 save and except on a complaint in writing by the aggrieved public servant or his superior -- Cognizance taken of the offence u/s 186 on a police report/chargesheet is impermissible in law.

(Para 32)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 324 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of criminal proceedings – Offence under other sections 323, 504, 427, 447 and 506 of the IPC are compoundable as per Section 320 of the CrPC -- In exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the offences alleged against the appellant u/s 307 and 324 IPC shall also be quashed as the other offences alleged against the appellant are compoundable u/s 320 of the CrPC – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 5-10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case – Just compensation -- Rs.16,34,400/- with 9% interest awarded by Tribunal by adopting the functional disability to be 100% -- Age of victim was 22 years when he was rendered almost immobile by the injuries suffered in an accident -- A prosthetic limb would cost approximately Rs.2 lakhs and it would have to be changed in every five years -- Victim would require the change of at least five prosthetic limbs in his lifetime considering his age -- Provision of wheelchair would also take approximately Rs.40,000/- which also would have to be changed every five years -- Hence, the total amount of Rs.10 lakhs for the prosthetic limbs and another Rs.2 lakhs for the wheelchair would take care of the future wellbeing of the victim -- Insurance Company to pay an additional amount of Rs.12 lakhs to the victim with simple interest @ 6% -- Amount increased in appeal of Insurance Company.

(Para 6, 7)

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Age of candidate – Choice of Collector – Writ jurisdiction -- Respondent No.4 was appointed as the lambardar by the learned Collector -- Said appointment further affirmed by the learned Commissioner and Financial Commissioner -- Respondent No.4 is younger in age than the petitioner and has studied up to 10+2 along with an ITI diploma and he also owns 28 kanals of land in the Village and is an agriculturist – Held, in the matter of appointment of the lambardar age of a candidate is a relevant consideration and also the choice of the learned Collector is not to be lightly interfered with even if two views are possible unless there is patent illegality or perversity therein -- No illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities -- Writ petition fails and dismissed.

(Para 5-8)

Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, Section 38B(v) – Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (17 of 1960), Section 8 -- Allotment of land to Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act – Plaintiff-ISKCON Bangalore is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act -- All the documents, from the application for allotment to the grant of exemption under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, indicate that the application for allotment was made on behalf of ISKCON Bangalore and that allotment was made to the said Society -- In the entire correspondence in relation to the allotment of Schedule ‘A’ property, the name of ISKCON Bangalore appears – No application was made by ISKCON Mumbai to correct the BDA record -- Even assuming that ISKCON Bangalore did not possess funds, and even if money came from ISKCON Mumbai, it cannot claim ownership -- Only because the existence of the Bangalore branch of ISKCON Mumbai was proved, one cannot jump to the conclusion that allotment of Schedule ‘A’ property was to ISKCON Mumbai through the Bangalore branch -- Sale deed was executed in favour of ISKCON Bangalore -- High Court's finding that ISKCON Mumbai, through its branch in Bangalore, was the owner of the schedule A property is completely erroneous and deserves to be set aside -- It is completely contrary to the documentary evidence – Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside.

(Para 34, 46-58)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 491 -- Non-deposit surety bond amount – Conviction for 6 months – Challenge to -- Appellant stood surety for convict in appeal against conviction u/s 138 of NI Act – Accused not appeared -- Being a poor person, appellant was unable to pay the amount of bail bonds and pleaded guilty -- Appellate Court should have taken a lenient view -- Punishment imposed on the appellant was too harsh, disproportionate -- Courts should impose monetary penalties or should adopt other measures -- Sentence reduced to the period already undergone by him (1 month and 18 days).

(Para 6, 7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 397, 401 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Settled amount paid to bank -- Respondent-Bank shown no objection to compounding of offence -- Object and purpose of enactment is to provide a compensatory mechanism for expeditious recovery of money as opposed to punishing the accused -- Amendment carried out in the year 2002 in the NI Act intended to make the nature of offence u/s 138 of the NI Act as a civil wrong while making it compoundable -- Conviction and order of sentence quashed/ set aside -- Petitioner acquitted.

(Para 3, 5-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 -- Appeal against conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Suspension of sentence – Condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount – Challenge to -- Ld. Lower Appellate Court suspended the sentence of the petitioner subject to depositing 20% of the compensation amount within 03 months – Held, appellate Court was required to consider whether the case falls in the exception or not -- Imposition of the condition of depositing 20% of the compensation amount set aside – Matter remanded back to the learned Lower Appellate Court with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case 2013 (12) SCALE 611.

(Para 4-6)

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Allegation of encroachment over Panchayat land -- Collector appointed petitioner as Lambardar -- Ld. Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner remanded the matter to the learned Collector for verifying the illegal encroachment over the Panchayat land by the petitioner – There is considerable basis for remanding the matter to the learned Collector for verifying the illegal encroachment over the Panchayat land by the petitioner especially considering the fact that certain ejectment orders were produced before the learned Financial Commissioner -- No merit in writ petition dismissed.

(Para 7)

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8 -- Jurisdiction of Arbitration – Fraud – Criminal wrong doing – Statutory violation – Ground of -- Allegations of fraud or criminal wrongdoing or of statutory violation would not detract from the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal to resolve a dispute arising out of a civil or contractual relationship on the basis of the jurisdiction conferred by the arbitration agreement.

(Para 15)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 8 -- generalia specialibus non derogant -- Once an application in due compliance with Section 8 of the Act of 1996 is filed, the approach of the civil court should be not to see whether the court has jurisdiction -- It should be to see whether its jurisdiction has been ousted -- The general law should yield to the special law -- Once there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, a judicial authority before whom an action is brought covering the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement is under a positive obligation to refer parties to arbitration by enforcing the terms of the contract.

(Para 16, 17)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 226 -- Reservation in Public appointment – Certificate of caste – Requirement of -- Irrespective of whether an aspirant for public employment belongs to a particular community like SC/ ST/ OBC, the status claimed by him for being accorded the benefit of reservation is per se not decisive -- Such status has to be certified by the competent authority upon following due process and identification that the aspirant is what he claims to be -- Requirement in question is no less mandatory and must be scrupulously followed -- Once a process of recruitment is set in motion, all aspirants are entitled in law to equal treatment -- There cannot be different yardsticks for different sets of aspirants -- Non-compliance with the terms of the advertisement/ notification is bound to trigger adverse consequences of rejection of the aspirant’s claimed status by the selecting body/ appointing authority, should he choose not to adhere to the same.

(Para 14)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 226 -- Advertisement for public appointment – Challenge to – Scope of -- Terms of an advertisement issued in connection with a selection process are normally not open to challenge unless the challenge is founded on the ground of breach of Article 16 of the Constitution or, for that matter, Article 14 -- Once an advertisement is issued inviting applications for public employment, it is the responsibility, nay duty, of an aspirant to read and note the terms and understand what its requirements are -- If any aspirant finds any of the terms ambiguous and there is scope for an inquiry inbuilt in the advertisement or is provided by any rule/regulation, an effort ought to be first made to obtain clarity for understanding the requirements accurately.

(Para 19)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379B, 325, 341, 34 – Appeal against conviction – Compounding after conviction in snatching case – Matter has been amicably settled between the parties -- Appeals allowed, as a result of compounding, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Sections 379-B, 325, 341, 34 IPC, whereby appellant sentenced to RI for five years and a fine of Rs. 10,500/- along with all consequential proceeding quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 14, 15)

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(d)(ii) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B -- Corruption case -- In a case of alleged criminal conspiracy, the prosecution is duty bound to prove by cogent, credible, and admissible evidence that the accused persons had a meeting of minds and participated in a common design.

(Para 14)

B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(d)(ii), 20 -- Corruption case – Demand and acceptance of bribe -- In the absence of demand and acceptance, the presumption u/s 20 of the P.C. Act does not arise and conviction cannot be thus sustained.

(Para 18)

C. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(d)(ii), 20 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B – Corruption case – Conspiracy – Presumption – Reversal of burden -- Tehsildar, who employed co-accused BK and was shown to be one of the primary beneficiaries, was not accorded sanction and therefore, did not face trial -- Appellants, despite not being shown to be actual beneficiaries or participants, were convicted on a generalized theory of “connivance” – Held, mere association or presence of a person in a place where a crime is committed does not ipso facto establish participation or conspiracy -- Reversal of burden, in a trial u/s 13(1)(d)(ii) of the P.C. Act and Section 120-B of the IPC, where prosecution has not discharged its primary burden is certainly not permissible in law – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 18-20)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Consortium to parents/ Children -- Compensation for loss of consortium to the children and the parents awarded by Tribunal, upheld.

(Para 5)

Haryana Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13 --  Haryana Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Hereditary claim -- Petitioner was wrongly appointed as Lambardar (BC) on the ground of his hereditary claim by Collector – Divisional Commissioner rightly set aside the order  of Collector being ultra vires the Constitution -- Respondent No. 4 is more meritorious than the petitioner in terms of his age and educational qualification and his name was recommended by lower revenue officials – No illegality or perversity in the order passed by learned Divisional Commissioner in appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar.

(Para 7-9)

Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (15 of 1872), Preamble, Section 5 -- Special Marriage Act, 1954 (43 of 1954), Section 4 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 2(c), 5 – Hindu girl conducted marriage under Christian Marriage Act -- Chairman of Town Panchayat -- Reservation as Scheduled caste – Effect upon -- Having voluntarily embraced Christianity,  she cannot blow hot and cold, claiming to be a Scheduled Caste for the purpose of 'public employment' -- She cannot identify herself a 'Hindu' after solemnization of marriage under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 -- Conferment of scheduled caste communal status to the 4th respondent, who is a Christian by religion, is nothing but a fraud on the Constitution -- To retain the socio-religious identity of a personality in case of marriages between two persons from two different religions, the only way out which could be adopted by the persons concerned to retain their original religion is to resort to a civil marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

(Para 71-75)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11 – Appointment of Arbitrator -- Bisecting the claim – Arbitrable and non-arbitrable – Permissibility of -- Held, High Court fell in error in bisecting the claim of the appellant into two parts, one arbitrable and the other not arbitrable, when it found arbitration agreement to be there for settlement of disputes between the parties -- The correct course for the High Court was to leave it open to the party to raise the issue of non-arbitrability of certain claims before the arbitral tribunal, which, if raised, could be considered and decided by it –  Parties are, at liberty to take the plea of non-arbitrability of certain claims before the arbitral tribunal.

(Para 12, 13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 341, 323, 307, 302, 120B, 147, 148, 149 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 3, 25, 5, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder – Conspiracy -- Regular bail -- Common intention – Overt Act -- Merely because no overt act was attributed to the respondent/ accused in the F.I.R., the same cannot be the sole consideration for grant of bail -- First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia of facts -- An FIR is a starter point to set the investigation in motion -- Respondent/accused hatched a conspiracy so as to eliminate the victim and engaged a contract killer to kill the victim  -- High Court failed to consider that the accused are the main accused in the matter and cannot be enlarged on bail because the other co-accused persons have been granted bail -- High Court order granting bail set aside.

(Para 16-20)

A. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 17, 18, 22C, Section 43D(5) – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- UAPA Case – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Regular bail – Delay in trial – Effect of -- Scope and application of Section 43D(5) of UAPA whereunder the court, at the stage of bail is not required to meticulously examine the admissibility and reliability of evidence -- The degree of satisfaction required under this provision has to be lower than the proof beyond reasonable doubt, but must still be rooted in material that is not inherently improbable or ex facie unreliable -- Rigour of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA would, however, in an appropriate case yield to the overarching mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, especially where the trial is inordinately delayed or where the incarceration becomes punitive -- However, such relaxation cannot possibly be automatic and must be evaluated in light of the specific facts and risks associated with each case

(Para 23, 24)

B. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 17, 18, 22C, Section 43D(5) -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 29 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS/ UAPA Case – Regular bail – Despite no direct recovery of contraband effected from the Appellant, the Prosecution’s case is that he played a coordinating and enabling role in facilitating the import of narcotics concealed as talc -- Investigative narrative does not rest solely on physical recovery but proceeds on the basis of conspiracy and facilitation – Absence of direct seizure is not dispositive, particularly where there exists a pattern of covert coordination, fictitious entities, and barter-based compensation – Bail declined.

(Para 25-27, 35)

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(e), (2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 109 -- Disproportionate of assets to the income -- Even a non-public servant can be convicted u/s 109 IPC read with 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.

(Para 15)

B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(e), (2) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 108, 109 -- Disproportionate of assets to the income -- Appellant’s husband acquired assets (disproportionate to his income), during the check period, in appellant’s name – It is not clear, whether the appellant and her husband entered into a prior conspiracy to amass a huge bulk of wealth through bribery, but there is no doubt that after such disproportionate wealth was amassed, the appellant has been actively involved in concealing such wealth by keeping assets in her name -- By doing so, the appellant is guilty of offence of abetment falling u/s 109 IPC read with 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act.

(Para 14, 15)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Tractor-trailer – Liability of Insurance company -- Trailer was being pulled by/ attached to the tractor and then the trailer on which the deceased was present, turned turtle/upturned, resulting in his death -- Tractor which was insured was the reason for the accident -- Had the trailer been stationary at a place and due to some reason, it overturned or a mishap happened, then without the trailer being specifically insured the Appellant would not be liable to pay -- Accident was caused by the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred -- Liability of the tractor/ its insurer extended to the accident -- If an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident -- No infirmity in the Impugned Order in fixation of liability on the insurer-Appellant for the accident.

(Para 11, 12, 19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 407, 420 – Cheating – Sentence of imprisonment reduced -- Appellant is a 71-year-old individual who is afflicted with various age-related ailments -- Medical documentation further reveals that the Appellant is a diabetic person and has a history of having suffered three heart attacks -- That apart, the incident is of the year 1994 i.e. more than 30 years old causing mental trauma and agony as faced by the Appellant -- All these factors in the facts and circumstances of this case persuade Court to take a lenient view -- Sentences imposed u/s 407 and 420 of IPC reduced to 2 years and 6 months of rigorous imprisonment from 5 years with fine and default punishment unchanged.

(Para 29, 30)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11, 21 – Notice for arbitration – Impleadment of parties to whom notice not issued – Power of Arbitration Tribunal – Summary of Conclusions:

I. A notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the ACA is mandatory as it fixes the date of commencement of arbitration, which is essential for determining limitation periods and the applicable law, and it is a prerequisite to filing an application under Section 11. However, merely because such a notice was not issued to certain persons who are parties to the arbitration agreement does not denude the arbitral tribunal of its jurisdiction to implead them as parties during the arbitral proceedings.

II. The purpose of an application under Section 11 is for the court to appoint an arbitrator, so as to enable dispute resolution through arbitration when the appointment procedure in the agreement fails. The court only undertakes a limited and prima facie examination into the existence of the arbitration agreement and its parties at this stage. Hence, merely because a court does not refer a certain party to arbitration in its order does not denude the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal from impleading them during the arbitral proceedings as the referral court’s view does not finally determine this issue.

III. The relevant consideration to determine whether a person can be made a party before the arbitral tribunal is if such a person is a party to the arbitration agreement. The arbitral tribunal must determine this jurisdictional issue in an application under Section 16 by examining whether a non-signatory is a party to the arbitration agreement as per Section 7 of the ACA.

IV. In the facts of the present appeal, respondent nos. 2 and 3 are parties to the arbitration agreement in Clause 40 of the LLP Agreement despite being non-signatories. Their conduct is in accordance with and in pursuance of the terms of the LLP Agreement, and hence, they can be made parties to the arbitral proceedings.

(Para 40)

Haryana Canal and Drainage Act, 1974 (29 of 1974), Section 2(15), 24 -- Restoration of watercourse -- Once the authority upon consideration of the matter has come to the conclusion that restoration of the watercourse on permanent basis was called for on account of the fact that the watercourse was running for more than 20 years and even the warabandi stood sanctioned thereon, no exception can be taken to the said course.

(Para 4)

Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17, 49 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10 -- Suit for specific performance -- Un-registered agreement to sell with possession – Dismissal of interlocutory application filed by the appellant seeking permission to place on record a document/ agreement to sell -- Prayer of the appellant in the interlocutory application falls under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act which provides that an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance -- Proviso also enables the said document to be received in evidence of a collateral transaction -- Appellant permitted to introduce the said document.

(Para 3, 9-11)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Petition for quashing of complaint – Reasoned order – Requirement of – Duty of High Court -- If the Division Bench of the High Court was not inclined to even issue notice to the respondents, then reasons ought to have been assigned for that purpose, or in the alternative, notice should have been issued to the respondents and after giving a fair opportunity to both sides, dismissed the complaint on merits – In the absence of any of the aforesaid options, impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice -- Matter remanded back to High Court with a request to dispose the same on its own merits and in accordance with law.

(Para 6, 7)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) -- Corruption case -- Demand of bribe – Presumption – Tests were conducted on the hands of the Appellant which proved negative --  However, money was recovered from the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the Appellant’s motorcycle -- Factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the Appellant and complainant not proved -- In such circumstances, the presumption u/s 20 of the Act would not militate against the Appellant -- Conviction and sentence set aside, extending to him the benefit of doubt.

(Para 6, 21, 22)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 42 – NDPS -- Search by temporary charge of SHO – Legality of -- SHO was absent on the relevant date and therefore, he has handed over the charge of the SHO to the Circle Inspector (Sub-Inspector) who has carried out the search -- Person holding temporary charge as Station House Officer at the relevant time is competent to carry out the search -- Submission that the Officer ought to be actually posted as SHO and not as In-Charge SHO is of no substance and cannot be accepted -- High Court manifestly erred in interpreting Section 42 of the Act and in holding that the In-Charge SHO was not competent to conduct the search -- Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside and the trial is directed to continue in accordance with law, expeditiously. Bheru Lal’s case (2013) 11 SCC 730 relied.

(Para 8-11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 7, 14 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of – Insolvency proceedings – Effect of -- Cheques were dated 15.01.2020 and 15.03.2020 and the Interim Resolution Professional/ IRP was appointed on 31.10.2019, prior to these dates -- Account was blocked due to the order issued by the NCLT -- As a result of the NCLT’s order, the authority and control of the account holder over the account ceased to exist – Cheques were dishonoured for the reason ‘Drawer Signature to operate account not received’ – Offence occurred post imposition of moratorium -- Petitioners cannot be held vicariously responsible for dishonour of cheque – Summoning order along with consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 1, 10-13)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- It may be true that Order 7 Rule 11 even though authorizes the Court to reject a plaint on failure on the part of the plaintiff to disclose a cause of action but the same would not mean that the averments made therein or a document upon which reliance has been placed although discloses a cause of action, the plaint would still be rejected on the ground that such averments are not sufficient to prove the facts stated therein for the purpose of obtaining relief claimed in the suit.

(Para 17)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint -- Plaint is not to be looked in isolation distinct from the documents relied upon with the plaint.

(Para 17)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – “does not disclose the cause of action” -- The phrase “does not disclose the cause of action” has to be very narrowly construed -- Rejection of plaint at the threshold entails very serious consequences -- This power therefore has to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and ought to be used only when the Court is absolutely sure that plaintiff does not have any arguable case at all.

(Para 18)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Deceased was Student of MBBS – Notional income @ Rs.70,000/- per-month -- MACT awarded Rs. 12,52,429 based on the minimum wage for a skilled worker (Rs.7,774/- per month), even though the deceased was a second-year MBBS student, having cleared NEET – It would be fair and reasonable to assess the income potential of the deceased at the time of his death in 2019 as Rs. 70,000/- per month -- 40% added for future prospects – Deduction of 50% made towards self-expenses -- Applying the multiplier of 18, the compensation for the death of the deceased would come to Rs. 1,05,84,000/- -- Loss of Consortium for the two parents (Rs.44,000 × 2) = Rs. 88,000/- -- Loss of Estate Rs. 33,000 (Estate) and Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500 (Funeral) -- Rs. 1,07,13,500 with intertest @ 7 % p.a. from the date of filing claim petition awarded.

(Para 8, 11-16)

Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, Rule 9(5) -- Auction purchaser – Forfeiture of earnest money – Challenge to -- Re-instatement of SERFAESI proceedings – Effect of -- Petitioner/ auction purchaser is seeking refund of the forfeited amount on the ground of reinitiation of the SARFAESI action by the bank upon the borrower – Held, it would not come within the contours of an ‘exceptional circumstance’, leading to dilution of the statutory consequence of forfeiture under Rule 9(5) of the 2002 Rules -- Petitioner has not indicated any extenuating circumstances that resulted in failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the balance amount within the prescribed time -- No question of any equity in his favour – Petition dismissed.

(Para 6-11)

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (3 of 1984), Section 3, 5 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Damages to public property – Encroachment over Gram Panchayat land – Adjudication of rights -- Necessity of -- Quashing of criminal proceedings -- As far as criminal proceeding for illegal encroachment, damage or trespass over the land belonging to Gram Sabha is concerned, the same can be undertaken but it would be subject to the adjudication of rights of the parties over the land in dispute as the said determination can be done only by the revenue court -- Continuation of criminal proceedings, being an abuse of process of the Court, ends of the justice requires that the said proceedings be quashed -- Entire proceedings of the Criminal Case quashed.

(Para 7-9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Summoning as additional accused – Scope of – Nature of -- The provision enables a criminal Court, once seized of the matter, to bring before it any individual whose complicity becomes apparent from the evidence that emerges in Court -- It is an exception to the general rule that an accused stands trial only upon charge-sheet and committal; its object is to ensure that the trial does not proceed without a participant who, on the material now available, appears to share criminal liability -- Power is extraordinary and therefore to be exercised with circumspection, yet it is neither illusory nor deferential to investigative conclusions: once live evidence evinces a prima-facie case stronger than mere suspicion, the Court must act.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Abetment to suicide -- Summoning as additional accused – Challenge to -- Plea of alibi by accused -- An alibi, is a plea in the nature of a defence; the burden to establish it rests squarely on the accused -- Parking chit, chemist’s receipt, OPD card, CCTV clip, have yet to be formally proved -- Until that exercise is undertaken, they remain untested pieces of paper -- Abetment to suicide is not an offence committed at a single moment -- It may consist of a build-up of psychological pressure culminating in self-destruction, and the law punishes that build-up wherever and whenever it occurs – Order of the Trial Court summoning respondent no. 2 to stand trial for the offence punishable u/s 306 IPC revived.

(Para 9-17)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 323, 504, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape – Refusal to marry – Quashing of FIR -- Relationship was not merely of knowing each other but of living together as a couple under one roof in a rented accommodation -- FIR does not allege that physical relationship was established only because there was a promise of marriage -- Besides, physical relationship continued for over two years without a complaint in between -- A presumption would arise of there being a valid consent – In a long drawn live-in relationship, occasions may arise where parties in that relationship express their desire or wish to formalize the same by a seal of marriage, but that expression of desire, or wish, by itself would not be indicative of relationship being a consequence of that expression of desire or wish – On ground of refusal to marry, the appellant cannot be subjected to prosecution for the offence of rape -- First information report and the consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 10-18)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 -- Rape -- Promise to marry – Intention -- To establish a false promise, it would have to be demonstrated that the maker of the promise had no intention of upholding his word at the time of making the promise.

(Para 11)

A. Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage -- Having considered the prolonged period of separation and the multiple failed attempts at reconciliation, which clearly indicate that there is no possibility of reunion, as well as their age (both are quinquagenarian) – It would be in the best interest of both the parties, and their daughter too, to put a quietus to this protracted litigation --  Marriage between the parties dissolved by a decree of divorce.

(Para 9-11)

B. Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 -- Divorce -- Irretrievable breakdown of marriage -- Respondent-husband has vehemently opposed the prayer for dissolution of marriage contending that none of the available grounds on which a Hindu marriage could be dissolved is present – Held, same is not a bar to exercise powers under Article 142 of the Constitution; more particularly when Court is satisfied that it is a case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Divorce granted.

(Para 12, 13)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17 – Recall/ further examination of witness – Stage of – Scope of -- If it appears to a court trying the suit at any stage of the proceedings that it is necessary to recall and further examine a witness it can always do so -- This power can be exercised even at the stage of writing a judgment by the court -- Power is to be used for removing ambiguities, for clarifying the statement and not for the purposes of filling up the lacuna in a party's case -- Power can be exercised by the Court at its own initiative and may even be so done at the instance of a party.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17, Section 151 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 165 -- Recall/ further examination of witness – Cross-examination – Permissibility of -- Section 165 of the Evidence Act provides that a Judge may in order to discover or obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases in any form at any time of any witness about any fact relevant -- If the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 are read along with the provisions of Section 165 of the Evidence Act it is clear that the power to recall and re-examine a witness is exclusively that of the court trying the suit -- The parties to the suit cannot take any objection to the question asked nor can they be permitted to cross-examine any witness without the leave of the court -- If circumstances warrant, an opportunity to a party to re-call a witness for examining, cross-examining or re-examining can be granted by a Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C.

(Para 7, 10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 500, 34 – Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a)(b)(c) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of defamation complaint – Appellant-homebuyers, dissatisfied with the services provided by developer, erected a banner detailing their grievances -- Peaceful and orderly protest made without using offensive or abusive language -- It could not be said that the appellants transgressed into the offending zone -- Their case wholly falls within the sweep, scope and ambit of exception 9 to Section 499 -- Their peaceful protest is protected by Article 19(1)(a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India -- Criminal proceedings levelled against them, if allowed to continue, will be a clear abuse of process -- Complaint along with the order issuing summons to the appellants u/s 500 read with Section 34 of the IPC quashed and set aside.

(Para 30-35)