Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR under Section 174-A IPC – Petition under Section 482 CrPC – FIR registered after petitioner declared proclaimed person in a Section 138 NI Act case – Petitioner settled the matter with complainant, who withdrew the complaint – Once proceedings under Section 138 NI Act withdrawn, FIR under Section 174-A IPC becomes unsustainable – Petition allowed, FIR quashed. [Paras 1-10]

Legal Principles – Effect of Settlement and Withdrawal – Analysis – Settlement between parties and withdrawal of Section 138 NI Act complaint nullify the basis for declaring petitioner proclaimed person – Continuation of FIR under Section 174-A IPC would be abuse of process – Case law supports quashing FIR in similar circumstances. [Paras 5-9]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Previous Decisions – Reliance on co-ordinate Bench judgments quashing FIR under Section 174-A IPC where Section 138 NI Act complaints were settled and withdrawn – Uniform application of legal principles ensures justice and prevents unnecessary litigation. [Paras 5-7]

Decision – Petition Allowed – FIR No. 86 dated 14.03.2020 under Section 174-A IPC quashed – Complainant not a necessary party for present petition as he withdrew the original complaint – Legal expenses and unnecessary litigation avoided. [Paras 10-11]

Criminal Law - Proclamation of Absconding Person - Compliance with Section 82 CrPC – Petition challenging orders declaring petitioner as proclaimed person under Section 82 CrPC – Proclamation issued with less than 30 days between publication and the date fixed – Subsequent adjournment to meet 30-day requirement not valid compliance – Petition allowed, orders set aside. [Paras 1-17]

Mandatory Compliance - Section 82 CrPC – Analysis – Law mandates a clear 30-day period between the publication of the proclamation and the date fixed for the accused's appearance – Court adjournment to fulfill the 30-day requirement not equivalent to statutory compliance – Proclamation deemed invalid if mandatory period not adhered to. [Paras 8-14]

Objective of Proclamation – Ensuring Accused's Appearance – Proclamation aims to secure the accused's presence for trial proceedings – Petitioner's appearance and compliance with bail requirements critical for the trial’s progression – Undertaking by petitioner to appear within 4 weeks and furnish bail bonds recognized. [Paras 15-16]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Orders dated 16.10.2017 and 03.11.2017 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, and 08.12.2018 by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, set aside – Petitioner directed to surrender and furnish bail bonds within 4 weeks – Cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with District Legal Service Authority, Gurugram – Petitioner's compliance to secure bail affirmed. [Para 17]

Employment Law – Termination During Probation – Misconduct Allegation – Appeal against the order of termination during probation. Held, termination based on unsatisfactory work and conduct during probation is neither stigmatic nor requires a detailed inquiry unless misconduct is specifically attributed. The appellant's termination, based on a "below average" ACR and dissatisfaction with his work, is valid under the statutory rules. Appeal dismissed. [Paras 12-14]

Probation Termination – Requirement of Inquiry – It is a settled law that no inquiry is required during probation unless specific misconduct is alleged. The termination order was simpliciter and within the probation terms. [Para 14]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The order of termination during probation is upheld as non-stigmatic and in accordance with the service rules. No merit found in the appeal, which is dismissed. [Para 15]

Criminal Law - Quashing of Complaint – Director and Manager Involvement – Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of complaint under Insecticides Act – Petitioners prosecuted as Director and Manager-cum-Godown Incharge of accused company – No specific averments in complaint showing their role in company’s business or quality control – Responsible Officer for Quality Control already named and proceeded against – Continuation of proceedings against petitioners would be abuse of process of Court – Petition allowed, complaint and summoning order quashed. [Paras 1-17]

Insecticides Act - Section 33 – Offences by Companies – Analysis – Section 33 imposes liability on persons in charge of or responsible for conduct of business at the time of offence – Petitioners not shown to have specific roles in quality control or business conduct – Responsible Officer for Quality Control explicitly named and proceeded against – No justification for vicarious liability on petitioners based on their positions alone. [Paras 10-17]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court and High Court decisions – Reliance on M/s Cheminova India Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and other relevant cases – Courts emphasize necessity of specific averments indicating direct responsibility for business conduct or quality control for vicarious liability – General allegations insufficient. [Para 11-14]

Decision – Quashing of Proceedings – Continuation of proceedings against petitioners deemed abuse of process – Complaint and summoning order set aside – Legal principles on vicarious liability reiterated, protecting individuals from unfounded prosecution based solely on their positions. [Para 17]

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 CrPC – NDPS Act – Non-commercial quantity – Grant of bail to petitioner – Petitioner not named in FIR, no recovery effected from him, only based on wife's disclosure statement – Petitioner’s wife found with 6.25 grams of heroin, far less than commercial quantity – Petition allowed. [Paras 1-18]

Interpretation of Evidence – Confessional Statements and NDPS Act – Analysis – Reliance on Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu – Confessional statements before police officers not admissible – Petitioner implicated solely on basis of wife's disclosure statement without corroborative evidence – Petitioner's non-involvement in any other case noted. [Paras 3-8, 10]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Previous Rulings – Reliance on orders of coordinate benches in similar cases where the accused were granted bail under similar circumstances – Principle that carrying contraband in transparent polythene raises doubts about prosecution's case. [Paras 9-15]

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioner's anticipatory bail granted – Conditions imposed for joining investigation – State at liberty to seek cancellation if petitioner does not cooperate with investigation. [Paras 16-18]

Income Tax Act - Motor Vehicles Act - Deduction of TDS on Interest – Revision petitions challenging orders directing the insurance company to deposit the deducted amount of TDS on compensation interest – Held, if interest on compensation is paid prior to June 1, 2015, insurance company must pay TDS amount to claimants and seek refund from Income Tax authorities – If interest paid after June 1, 2015 exceeds ₹50,000 per claimant per financial year, TDS applicable only after securing Form 15G under Rule 29C of the Income Tax Rules – Interest must be spread over years from claim filing to payment date – Only if yearly interest exceeds ₹50,000 per claimant, TDS arises. [Paras 1-43]

Calculation and Payment of TDS – Analysis – Insurance companies must calculate and file details of interest payable per claimant with MACT – Claimants required to submit Form 15G for each financial year to avoid TDS – For interest paid before June 1, 2015, insurance companies must refund TDS to claimants and seek income tax refund – Interest paid after June 1, 2015 exceeding ₹50,000 per annum per claimant attracts TDS if Form 15G not submitted. [Paras 34-42]

Compliance with Income Tax Rules – Legal Obligations – Ensuring insurance companies' compliance with TDS obligations – MACT to release payments only after receiving Form 15G from claimants – Insurance companies relieved of TDS obligation upon obtaining necessary declarations. [Para 34]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Impugned orders set aside – Cases remanded to MACT for fresh orders in line with the judgment – Petitioners directed to follow specified procedures for TDS calculation and refund claims. [Para 43]

Criminal Procedure – Repeated Applications under Section 311 – Invocation on Multiple Occasions – Section 311, Cr.P.C. – Petition for quashing Trial Court order dismissing application for re-examination – Held, no bar to invoke Section 311 repeatedly if situation arises – Different reliefs claimed in separate applications permissible – Denial of re-examination would curtail right to fairly prove case – Impugned order set aside – Petition allowed. [Para 7, 9]

Power of Court under Section 311 – Analysis – Court has wide power to summon or recall any witness at any stage before judgment – Evidence sought must be essential for just decision of the case – Oversight in complainant’s examination-in-chief justified re-examination – Application different from earlier one – Trial Court's refusal to summon complainant erroneous. [Para 5-7, 9]

Fair Opportunity to Prove Case – Consideration – Repeated applications under Section 311 permissible to rectify inadvertent mistakes – Supreme Court precedent supports allowing correction of errors to ensure fair trial – Denial of re-examination curtails fair chance to prove case. [Para 8]

Decision – Impugned Order Set Aside – Trial Court directed to provide effective opportunity for re-examination on specified date – Subject to deposit of costs – Petition disposed of. [Para 10-12]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction – Mutation of Property – Challenge to Single Judge’s Order – Appeal against Single Judge’s order quashing rejection of representation seeking mutation – Will executed in favor of adopted son predeceasing testator – Mutation sanctioned in favor of third party upheld by Supreme Court – Held, the appeal by the State of Haryana is allowed, quashing the Single Judge’s order – Revenue authorities bound by Civil Court decree – No procedural infirmity found in mutation proceedings – Representation rightly rejected due to lack of statutory remedy being availed by respondents.

Civil Law – Will and Succession – Validity of Will – Will executed in favor of legatee who predeceased testator – Legacy lapsing as per Section 105 of Indian Succession Act – Mutation in favor of another party – Civil Court decree not challenged – Held, legacy under Will lapses if legatee predeceases testator unless Will specifies otherwise – Mutation entries made in 1961 and 1962 remain unchallenged and valid – Respondents’ representation for mutation rightly rejected.

Decision – Quashing of Single Judge’s Order – Appeal Allowed – The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside – The order dated 18.05.2022 by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade-cum-Naib Tehsildar, Ambala Cantt., rejecting the representation of the respondents is upheld.

Admissibility of Certified Copies of RoznamchaWaqiati—Evidence—Regular Second Appeals challenging concurrent findings—Certified copy of RoznamchaWaqiati maintained by the Patwari under the Punjab Land Records Manual deemed to be a public document by Section 151 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887—Held, such documents fulfill the requirements of being public documents under Sections 74 and 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Certified copies are admissible in evidence. [Para 16]

Bonafide Purchasers and Ostensible Ownership—Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 41—Requirements for ostensible ownership dissected by Supreme Court in Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (2007) 2 SCC 404—Defendants must show vendor is the ostensible owner, sale is for valuable consideration, and actual owner consented to the ostensible ownership—In absence of such proof, defendants cannot be declared bonafide purchasers—Appeal dismissed. [Paras 18-20]

Decision—Appeal dismissed—Both courts below held that the plaintiffs continue to be the owners of the property except for the portion sold through court auction—Certified copies of RoznamchaWaqiati are admissible as public documents—Defendants not declared bonafide purchasers due to lack of evidence of actual owner’s consent to ostensible ownership. [Para 21]