Criminal Procedure – Recalling Witness – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Petition challenging dismissal of application to recall witness – Trial court dismissed application citing delay – High Court held delay not attributable to petitioner due to later issuance of crucial bank communication – Clarification from Branch Manager essential to resolve material discrepancy – Dismissal of application found to be erroneous – High Court exercises inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow recall of witness – Orders of lower courts set aside. [Paras 1-14]

Evidence Law – Essential Witnesses – Application to Recall – High Court emphasizes importance of recalling witness to clarify critical financial error – Branch Manager’s testimony crucial for just decision – Courts must ensure fair trial by permitting rectification of such discrepancies – Exercise of Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be judicious and aimed at discovering truth. [Paras 6-10]

Decision – Quashing of Lower Courts' Orders – High Court quashes orders of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge – Allows application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling Branch Manager – Directs trial court to permit re-examination and cross-examination of witness – Reaffirms commitment to fair trial and just resolution. [Para 13-14]

Criminal Law – Pre-arrest Bail – Summoning as Additional Accused – Petition for anticipatory bail by additional accused summoned under Section 193 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners' names figured in FIR but were exonerated in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. – Trial court found active role and summoned them – High Court held trial court justified in summoning – For anticipatory bail, principles from Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case applied – Petitioners summoned for serious offence under Section 302 IPC – Reasonable apprehension of arrest on appearance – Plea for anticipatory bail within available parameters granted. [Paras 1-8]

Criminal Procedure – Summoning of Additional Accused – Section 193 Cr.P.C. empowers court to summon additional accused based on material accompanying Section 173 Cr.P.C. report – Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. requires deposition of prosecution witness – High Court emphasizes no right to anticipatory bail but considers cooperation and non-defiance of law by accused – If additional accused willing to face trial, anticipatory bail can be granted subject to conditions. [Paras 7-8]

Decision – Grant of Anticipatory Bail – Court allows petition for anticipatory bail – Interim bail granted on 29.5.2015 made absolute – Petitioners to comply with conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. – Ensures balance between right to liberty and need for compliance with legal process. [Para 8]

Civil Procedure – Partition Suit – Appeal against dismissal of partition suit – Appellants claimed joint possession of property – Respondents asserted property already partitioned via family settlement – Respondents relied on appellants' written statement in an earlier suit acknowledging partition – High Court held appellants bound by earlier admission of partition – Written statement in previous proceedings considered conclusive unless proved fraudulent or coerced – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-14]

Evidence Law – Admissions – Sections 17 and 18 of Indian Evidence Act – Definition and relevance – Admissions are statements suggesting inference as to any fact in issue – Admissions by parties in previous proceedings binding unless proven to be result of fraud or undue influence – Appellants' admission of partition in previous suit upheld – No evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. [Paras 9-11]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – High Court upholds findings of lower courts – Confirms appellants' admission in prior written statement acknowledging partition – No substantial question of law warranting appeal survival – Both impugned judgments and decrees upheld – Appeal dismissed with costs. [Paras 13-14]

Parole – Temporary Release – Grounds for Parole – Petition challenging rejection of parole for solemnizing marriage of petitioner's daughters – Petitioner already availed four weeks parole for house repair – High Court holds that parole under Section 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(d) of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 are independent and not conjointly restricted to four weeks per year – Petition allowed, order rejecting parole set aside – Authorities directed to reconsider parole application for marriage of daughters. [Paras 1-11]

Parole – Grounds for Temporary Release – Interpretation of Section 3 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 – Parole for marriage under Section 3(1)(b) and for house repair under Section 3(1)(d) to be counted separately – Periods not to be taken conjointly – Previous parole for house repair does not bar subsequent parole for marriage in the same year. [Para 9]

Decision – Grant of Parole – Court directs reconsideration of parole application for marriage of petitioner's daughters – Reiterates that both grounds for parole under Section 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(d) are separate – Urgency of matter emphasized with direction for immediate reconsideration. [Para 11]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Disclosure Statements – Appeal against conviction under Section 20/29 NDPS Act – Appellant No. 1 apprehended with 5.5 Kg charas at railway station – Disclosure by appellant No. 1 implicating appellant No. 2 as supplier – No recovery from appellant No. 2 – Trial Court convicted both appellants – Appeal of appellant No. 1 abated due to her death – Appeal of appellant No. 2 allowed – Held, prosecution cannot base case on disclosure statement of co-accused without corroboration – Section 30 Evidence Act not aiding prosecution in absence of supporting evidence – Conviction of appellant No. 2 set aside, benefit of doubt given. [Paras 1-20]

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Co-Accused's Disclosure – Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act – Disclosure by co-accused not substantive evidence – Can only lend corroboration if other evidence present – No recovery or other evidence against appellant No. 2 – Section 27 not applicable as no fact discovered from disclosure – Appeal allowed, appellant No. 2 acquitted due to lack of evidence. [Paras 15-17]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellant No. 2 – High Court acquits appellant No. 2 Raj Kumar @ Raju Dube – Orders immediate release if not required in any other case – Emphasizes need for independent corroborative evidence for conviction based on disclosure by co-accused. [Para 20]

Land Acquisition – Re-determination of Compensation – Application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act – Petition challenging rejection of application for re-determination of compensation as time-barred – Original award announced on 30.04.1963 – Reference under Section 18 decided on 25.04.1970 – Application for re-determination filed on 03.11.1987 – Held, limitation period for filing application under Section 28-A is three months from the date of the award of the reference court – Petition dismissed as the application was filed beyond the period of limitation. [Paras 1-14]

Limitation – Computation – Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act – Interpretation – Held, limitation period for application under Section 28-A to be reckoned from the date of the award of the reference court and not from any subsequent appellate order – Applications must be filed within three months from the date of such award. [Paras 5-7]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Court dismisses petition challenging the rejection of re-determination application – Confirms that the application was rightly dismissed as time-barred, being filed beyond the statutory period of three months from the date of the reference court’s award. [Para 14]

Public Premises – Eviction – Appeal against order directing the petitioner to seek remedy before civil court – Panchayat Samiti rented out plot to respondent, who defaulted in rent payment – Collector ordered eviction and imposed damages – Subsequent compromise allegedly executed between Panchayat Samiti and respondent – Panchayat Samiti later denied compromise, alleging fraud – High Court holds that eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act culminated with the Collector's eviction order – Officials of Panchayat Samiti not authorized to enter into compromise with private respondent regarding public premises – Orders passed subsequent to eviction order, including the appellate authority's order, set aside – Writ petition allowed with costs, direction for eviction and initiation of disciplinary and criminal proceedings against delinquent officials. [Paras 1-8]

Landlord-Tenant – Unauthorized Occupant – Eviction proceedings under the Public Premises Act – Tenant declared unauthorized occupant due to rent default – Eviction ordered by Collector – Alleged compromise found fraudulent – High Court emphasizes protection of public property and sets aside orders based on unauthorized compromise. [Paras 6-8]

Decision – Quashing of Subsequent Orders – Court quashes all orders passed subsequent to the eviction order by the Collector – Reiterates that government authorities cannot compromise on public premises without proper authorization – Orders eviction and imposes costs on the private respondent. [Para 8]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Petition to quash FIR and subsequent proceedings under Sections 376, 120-B IPC, and Section 3 of SC/ST Act – Complainant alleged sexual exploitation and caste-based humiliation by accused Vishal Sharma – Petitioners (accused's family) allegedly involved in caste-based remarks – No evidence that petitioners had any role in initial exploitation – Held, meeting in private house does not constitute 'public view' under SC/ST Act – FIR and proceedings against petitioners quashed. [Paras 1-29]

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Interpretation of 'Public View' – Alleged caste-based remarks made in private house – Held, remarks in private setting do not fulfill 'public view' requirement – Quashing of FIR and proceedings justified. [Para 24]

Decision – Quashing of FIR – High Court quashes FIR and proceedings against petitioners – Lack of evidence of their involvement in alleged offences – Case against accused Vishal Sharma to proceed as per law. [Para 29]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Petitions to quash Calendra under Section 145 Cr.P.C. regarding land ownership dispute – Deceased Colonel Gurdev Singh's property claimed by petitioner (his second wife) and respondent No. 5 (his daughter) – Civil suit for declaration of ownership already pending – Ad interim injunction granted to maintain status quo – High Court holds proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. unnecessary and an abuse of court process – Civil court better suited to adjudicate the matter – Petitions allowed, Calendra quashed. [Paras 1-34]

Land Dispute – Civil vs. Criminal Jurisdiction – Civil suit for declaration of ownership and possession pending – Ad interim injunction for status quo granted – Criminal proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated later – High Court finds criminal proceedings redundant when civil remedies are available and being pursued – Civil court's orders should be binding on criminal court. [Paras 21-30]

Decision – Quashing of Section 145 Proceedings – Court quashes Calendra and proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Emphasizes civil court's jurisdiction and ongoing suit for ownership declaration – Maintains that appropriate remedy is before the civil court, not criminal court. [Para 31-34]