Criminal Procedure – Section 528 BNSS – FIR No. 281/2007 (IPC 323/341/506/34) – Police cancellation prepared in 2007/2009 but not filed – Final report filed and accepted on 22.08.2025 post-petition – Court deprecates 15-year delay; imposes ₹1,00,000 costs (₹25,000 to petitioner; ₹75,000 to Punjab SLSA-DRF); directions for departmental action, compliance affidavit by DGP within 90 days – Petition disposed as grievance redressed [Paras 3-8].

Administrative Lapse – Investigative Delay – Scope of Discretion – While no rigid statutory time-limit for filing final report, discretion must be reasonable and diligent – 15-year delay held antithetical to rule of law; non-application of mind and lack of diligence amount to abdication of statutory/constitutional duty – Court quotes classic exposition of “discretion” (Lord Halsbury) – Institutional accountability emphasized [Paras 5-7].

BNSS, 2023 – Section 528 – Maintainability and Relief – Direction sought to compel presentation of cancellation/status report regarding compromised FIR – State’s affidavit acknowledges missing file; corrective circular No. 30/2025 issued; show cause to then Dy.SP – Since final report filed and accepted on 22.08.2025, substantive grievance stood redressed – Petition disposed with costs and systemic directions [Paras 4, 7-8].

Costs and Deterrence – State Liability and Recovery – ₹1,00,000 costs imposed on State (₹25,000 to petitioner; ₹75,000 to Punjab State Legal Services Authority – Disaster Relief Fund) – Liberty to recover from salaries of delinquent officials per law – Departmental proceedings to be pursued in right earnest and concluded expeditiously; non-compliance may invite punitive consequences [Para 8].

Police Administration – Circular Compliance – DGP’s Circular No. 30 of 15.09.2025 regarding timely preparation, submission, and follow-up of cancellation/untraced reports to be implemented in letter and spirit – Not a paper directive; must be effectuated to achieve intended purpose; DGP to file compliance affidavit with Registrar General within 90 days [Paras 4, 8].

Decision – Final report in FIR accepted on 22.08.2025; petition disposed as redressed; costs of ₹1,00,000 imposed with directions on recovery, departmental action, and compliance affidavit by DGP within 90 days [Para 8].

Land Acquisition – Section 24(2) of 2013 Act – Compensation Enhancement – National Highways Act – Notification under Section 3A issued for acquisition of land for widening of NH-44 – Competent Authority awarded compensation @ ₹1220.88 per sq.m. – Petitioner sought higher compensation citing sale deeds of adjacent lands – Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) rejected claim relying on outdated land value and held ₹1220.88 sufficient – Writ Petition filed challenging arbitrator’s award – Held: Arbitrator failed to consider relevant, proximate sale exemplars and committed perversity in rejecting valid comparative sale deeds – Interference under Article 226 justified [Paras 5–9]

Land Valuation – Comparable Sale Deeds – Petitioner produced registered sale deed of land (3.5 km away) sold for ₹3,716.88 per sq.m. – Arbitrator held land not proximate and refused reliance – Court held land situated along same highway stretch and relevant to determine market value – Nearby sales with similar characteristics should not have been ignored – Arbitrator failed to appreciate essential principles for market value determination [Paras 7–8]

Arbitration under NH Act – Section 3G(5) – Scope of Judicial Review – Award of Arbitrator challenged under Article 226 – Held: Though arbitrator’s decision generally not interfered with under Article 226, writ jurisdiction can be exercised when award is perverse, unreasonable or against settled legal principles – In this case, Arbitrator ignored cogent sale evidence and relied on stale collector rate – Interference warranted [Paras 6–9]

Principles – Market Value Determination – Reliance on Collector Rates deprecated – Reiterated that collector rates do not reflect actual market value – Comparable sale method is preferred – Time proximity, location, similarity of land, and size of transaction are key factors – Failure to consider these vitiates award [Para 8]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Land acquisition deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Possession and compensation requirements not satisfied – Respondents restrained from interfering with petitioner’s possession – Liberty granted to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law if required.

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1357 days in filing Second Appeal – Applicant Panchayat challenged Appellate Court decree of 2018 only after execution proceedings were initiated in 2023 – Applicant originally exonerated by Trial Court – Appellate Court imposed monetary liability despite no appeal by plaintiff – Held: Applicant failed to offer sufficient cause for long delay – Knowledge of decree established – Delay not bona fide – Gross negligence and indolent conduct disentitles applicant from discretionary relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act [Paras 4, 9, 14–20, 32.1–33]

Civil Procedure – Merger of Decree – Though Trial Court dismissed suit against defendant no. 1, Appellate Court held otherwise – Decree of Appellate Court prevails – Defendant No.1 cannot avoid liability on ground of original exoneration once appellate decree imposed payment obligations – Failure to appeal in time makes decree binding [Paras 16–17]

Execution – Attachment of Property – Execution application initiated due to non-compliance with money decree – Order of attachment passed against immovable property of defendant no. 1 – Stay granted conditionally by High Court in writ petition – Subsequent delay application in appeal not a valid explanation [Paras 8, 18]

Delay – State Instrumentality – No Separate Standard – Delay by Panchayat not treated more leniently – Court reiterated that State authorities must act diligently – Lethargy, negligence, or bureaucratic delay cannot be treated as sufficient cause – State machinery must fix accountability to prevent delay [Paras 12.2, 25–26, 30]

Discretionary Power – Not Absolute – High Court reiterated that condonation of delay is a discretionary power – Cannot be invoked in absence of bona fide explanation – Length of delay, conduct of parties, and public interest must be weighed – Absence of due diligence fatal even if applicant claims good case on merits [Paras 22–23, 27–29]

Precedents Cited – Supreme Court decisions including Sheo Raj Singh, Binod Pathak, Ramkumar Choudhary, Rajneesh Kumar, Basawaraj, and Shivamma examined – Held: None support condonation in facts of present case – Explanation found insufficient, fabricated, or vague – Court must not substitute merits for diligence [Paras 21–24, 27–32]

Decision: Application dismissed – Delay of 1357 days in filing Second Appeal not condoned – Registry directed to refuse registration of appeal – Rs. 10,000 cost deposited by applicant to be disbursed to plaintiff through RTGS/NEFT [Paras 33–35]

Warrant of Arrest – BNSS, 2023 – Calcutta HC upholds Magistrate’s order showing petitioner as absconder in municipal forgery case despite his compliance with Section 179 BNSS notice; revision dismissed.

Criminal Procedure – Warrant of Arrest – BNSS, 2023 – Magistrate’s Order – Petitioner shown as absconder in charge-sheet despite compliance with Section 179 BNSS notice – Held: compliance with notice does not bar Magistrate from issuing warrant if IO records non-availability during search – No ground to interfere in revisional jurisdiction – Petition dismissed [Paras 5-11].

Forgery Allegations – Building Plan Sanction – Inspection Book Records – Allegations of forged municipal inspection records to obtain 5-storied building plan where only 3 permitted – Charge-sheet filed against petitioner/developers – Whether forgery committed to be tested in trial – Revisional Court will not evaluate merits at pre-trial stage [Paras 2-3, 10].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 442 BNSS – High Court’s power exceptional and sparing – Interference only in case of manifest illegality or miscarriage of justice – No error found in Magistrate’s order; casual handwriting lapse in prior order not sufficient for intervention [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Magistrate’s order dated 29.07.2025 issuing warrant of arrest sustained – Revision petition dismissed; trial to proceed in accordance with law [Paras 11-12].

Hindu Marriage – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Denial of Relief – Husband sought dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(a) and (b) HMA – Alleged cruelty, false accusations, and desertion by wife – Family Court found husband failed to prove cruelty of grave nature – Court also found no animus deserendi by wife – Held: Husband had deserted the wife, continued communication indicated condonation, and evidence of alleged extramarital affair with another woman did not qualify as cruelty or desertion by wife – Divorce rightly denied [Paras 36–43, 82–88].

Matrimonial Finance – Maintenance Pendente Lite – Quantum – Section 24 HMA – Wife sought enhancement of interim maintenance citing husband’s high salary – Husband opposed citing prior maintenance orders and wife’s alleged income – Court upheld Family Court’s discretion – Directed continued payment of Rs. 2,00,000/month to wife considering standard of living and ongoing litigation – Held: No interference warranted with maintenance order [Paras 23–28, 44(ii)].

Matrimonial Property – Jointly Held Property – Share in Sale Proceeds – Section 27 HMA and Section 14 HSA – Dispute over Rs. 1.09 crore from sale of jointly held flat – Wife claimed 50% as stridhan – Husband claimed exclusive ownership based on his financial contribution – Held: Title was joint and contribution irrelevant under Section 4 of the Benami Act – Wife entitled to 50% share – Registrar directed to release withheld 50% to wife [Paras 29–35, 44(i)].

Benami Transactions – Bar to Real Ownership Claim – Section 4 Benami Act – Husband’s plea that he alone funded the property held jointly was rejected – Held: Benami prohibition bars claim of real ownership against titleholder – Presumption of joint ownership applies when spouses jointly hold property, even if consideration is paid by one [Paras 32–34].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – No Relief by High Court – Though Court acknowledged irretrievable breakdown of marriage due to long separation and litigation since 2006 – Held: Only Supreme Court has power under Article 142 to grant divorce on this ground – High Court cannot dissolve marriage solely on this basis [Paras 36, 80].

Section 23 HMA – Taking Advantage of Own Wrong – Husband had pre-decided to divorce wife, left matrimonial home first, and later alleged desertion – Conduct indicated intent to force separation and blame wife – Held: He could not take advantage of his own wrong under Section 23(1)(a) HMA [Paras 37–39, 43].

Condonation – Effect of Continued Cohabitation – Husband and wife continued to meet, dine, and interact after filing divorce – Court applied principle from Dastane v. Dastane – Found acts of alleged cruelty, if any, had been condoned – Condonation inferred from post-filing conduct [Paras 40, 56–57].

Decision:

Appeal for divorce (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 38/2019) dismissed – Judgment of Family Court upheld

Appeal for release of 50% property proceeds (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 217/2017) allowed – Amount to be released to wife within two months

Appeals on maintenance (MAT.APP.(F.C.) 102/2018 and 20/2018) disposed of – Interim maintenance of Rs. 2,00,000/month to continue

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 148 – Deposit of Minimum 20% Compensation – Discretion of Appellate Court – Applicants challenged order of First Appellate Court directing deposit of 20% of cheque amount while granting suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. – Contention: requirement not mandatory and could not be imposed after suspension of sentence – Held: As per Muskan Enterprises & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2024 INSC 1046, read with Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi, and Jamboo Bhandari v. MP Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., appellate court has discretion to impose such condition, but ordinarily deposit of 20% is mandatory unless case is exceptional – Word “may” in Section 148(1) to be construed as “shall” in substance – Direction to deposit 20% is valid and within jurisdiction of appellate court even if imposed subsequently [Paras 6–11, 17].

Statutory Interpretation – ‘May’ and ‘Shall’ – Legislative Intent – Court held that though Section 148(1) NI Act uses both “may” and “shall”, their context indicates different purposes: “may” gives discretion to order deposit, “shall” makes the minimum quantum of deposit mandatory once discretion is exercised – Legislative intent was to ensure partial realization of compensation to complainant during pendency of appeal – Discretion must be exercised judiciously with recorded reasons where exemption from deposit is granted [Paras 8, 10–12, 17].

Criminal Procedure – Power to Impose Deposit Condition After Suspension of Sentence – Contention that deposit order could be passed only at the time of suspension of sentence rejected – Appellate court retains jurisdiction to direct deposit any time during pendency of appeal until final disposal – Purpose of Section 148 NI Act is to secure fair compensation and discourage protraction of appeals [Paras 7, 15–16].

Judicial Precedents – Harmonisation – High Court reconciled Jamboo Bhandari and Muskan Enterprises – Held: condition of 20% deposit is ordinarily mandatory; relaxation only in exceptional cases where deposit would cause grave injustice or deprive right of appeal; reasons must be recorded [Paras 6, 11–13].

Decision:

Criminal revision application dismissed – Order of First Appellate Court directing deposit of 20% compensation upheld – Rule discharged.

Succession Law – Letters of Administration – Second Grant on basis of Forged Will – Fraud on Court – Revocation Allowed – Probate of Will dated 4th April 1993 in favour of Dr. Feroze Duggan attained finality up to Supreme Court – Respondent suppressed material facts and obtained second Letters of Administration in 2022 on alleged Will dated 6th April 1993 – Held: Law does not permit successive grants over same estate; grant obtained by fraud and suppression of heirs is void ab initio – Letters of Administration dated 03.06.2022 and Deed of Transfer dated 17.06.2022 annulled – Exemplary costs imposed; suo motu contempt and criminal proceedings directed [Paras 86–89, 112].

Fraud on Court – Effect – Any proceeding obtained by deliberate deception stands vitiated – Court reaffirmed that “fraud unravels everything” – Principle of finality cannot shield fraudulent grants – Fraudulent averments in Petition and false affidavit constitute abuse of process; Court duty-bound to set aside such grant [Paras 88, 108–110].

Caveatable Interest – Locus of Executors and Legal Heirs – Section 213 Succession Act – Petitioners as executors and Class II heirs of Dr. Feroze Duggan held to have locus to seek revocation – Even persons acquiring interest after testator’s death entitled to move revocation – Challenge to locus by Respondent and alleged wife of Dr. Feroze Duggan rejected [Paras 90–91, 99–101].

Suspicious Circumstances – Forged Will – Unnatural Conduct – Respondent relied on alleged Will dated 6th April 1993 with vague language, unidentified attesting witnesses, contradictory explanations of delay, and unproved mortgage deed – Held: Improbable that testatrix who executed valid Will on 4th April 1993 with eminent witnesses would execute contradictory Will two days later – Delay of 29 years fatal – Circumstances establish fabrication [Paras 92–97, 102–103].

Abuse of Process – Suppression of Material Facts – Misrepresentation – Respondent falsely averred absence of legal heirs despite acknowledging grandchildren – Misleading averments treated Petition as uncontested – Court condemned suppression as deliberate fraud; initiated action under Section 340 CrPC equivalent provisions of BNS/BNSn – Exemplary costs imposed to deter frivolous litigation [Paras 35–38, 110–112].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Letters of Administration dated 03.06.2022 and Deed of Transfer dated 17.06.2022 cancelled – Registrar of Sub-Assurances directed to rectify records – Respondent saddled with costs of ₹25 lakhs – Suo motu contempt notice issued for breach of court orders – Prothonotary directed to lodge complaint for offences under BNS 2023 – Compliance to be reported every three months [Paras 112–113].

Civil Revision – Withdrawal of Earlier Suit – Order 23 Rule 1 CPC – Permission to file fresh suit implied – Plaintiff withdrew earlier Title Suit No.160/1979 with prayer for liberty to file fresh suit – Trial Court allowed withdrawal but did not expressly mention liberty – Held: Order must be construed as granting composite prayer – Fresh suit not barred – Trial Court erred in holding otherwise – Civil revision allowed, impugned order set aside, suit restored for decision on merits [Paras 5–7, 9–10].

Interpretation – Withdrawal with Liberty – Where order allows withdrawal without specifically refusing liberty sought, it is deemed that liberty was granted – Court cannot split relief – Composite prayer under Order 23 Rule 1 must be allowed or rejected in toto – Supported by precedents Sukumar Banerjee v. Dilip Kumar Sarkar, AIR 1982 Cal 17, and Khudi Rai v. Lalo Rai, AIR 1926 Pat 259 [Paras 5–9].

Decision – Civil Revision No.54/2013 allowed – Order dated 22.12.2012 of Sub-Judge VIII, Siwan set aside – Title Suit No. 340/1985 to be decided on merits as per law [Para 10].

NDPS Bail – Section 21(c), NDPS Act – Commercial quantity heroin (500 gms) – Bail granted despite Section 37 bar due to prolonged custody of 1 year 5 months, absence of antecedents, and SC precedents – Conditional liberty with strict safeguards [Paras 11-16, 17, 26].

Commercial Quantity & Rigors of Section 37 – Recovery of 500 grams heroin constituted commercial quantity—ordinarily attracting embargo of Section 37 NDPS Act—Court required to be satisfied on twin conditions [Paras 8-10].

Prolonged Custody & Article 21 – Custody of 1 year 5 months considered excessive pre-trial incarceration—Article 21 right to liberty invoked—Supreme Court precedents in Rabi Prakash, Sabat Mehtab Khan, and Ramlal applied—Held: liberty must override statutory embargo when custody is unduly prolonged [Paras 11-15].

Conditions Imposed – Bail subject to stringent terms: bond or FD of ₹25,000; surrender of firearms & arms license; compliance with statutory bond obligations; no tampering with evidence; cancellation clause if repeat NDPS or serious offences committed—aimed at balancing liberty with societal interest [Paras 17-23, 26].

Purpose of Conditions – Conditions intended to reform and deter repetition of drug offences—linked to Supreme Court principle in Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT Delhi (2022) on proportional bail conditions [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Petition allowed—petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail in FIR No.29/2024, P.S. Sadar Gurdaspur, subject to conditions—pending applications disposed [Paras 27-29].