Civil Writ - Illegal Migrant - Foreigners’ Tribunal – Burden of Proof – Section 2(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 – Declaration as Foreigner Upheld – Petitioner failed to establish linkage with projected parents through sale deed, jamabandi, and electoral rolls – Tribunal held evidence unreliable and inadmissible – High Court upheld Tribunal’s view, holding petitioner failed to discharge burden of proof of Indian citizenship [Paras 6-7, 21-23].

Reference Procedure – Local Verification Officer’s Report – Validity of Reference – Report indicated petitioner failed to submit documents – Electoral Registration Officer rightly referred matter to Tribunal – Held: No illegality in reference as suspicion of citizenship required adjudication by Tribunal [Paras 16-18].

Reliance on Precedents – Anjana Biswas, Indira Newar, Sona Kha, Md. Rahim Ali – Distinguished – Petitioner’s reliance misplaced as facts differed; here, absence of documents and contradictions in testimony justified reference and adverse finding [Paras 19-22].

Evidentiary Contradictions – Sale deed of 1971 and voter lists of 1985/1989 inconsistent – Petitioner concealed step-mother’s identity and linkage inconsistent – DW2’s voter identity card contradicted claim of relationship – Minor discrepancies held material, undermining credibility [Paras 21-22].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence but only review procedural lapses – No procedural impropriety found – Petition dismissed [Paras 13, 23].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – Opinion of Foreigners’ Tribunal declaring petitioner a post-1971 foreigner sustained [Para 23].

Criminal Law – SC/ST Act – Anticipatory Bail – Maintainability – Where the allegations in FIR do not disclose a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act, bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act does not apply – In such cases, anticipatory bail is maintainable under Section 438 CrPC [now Section 482 BNSS] before the High Court – Held: High Court retains concurrent original jurisdiction in such cases [Paras 22-24, 27].

Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction of High Court – Despite creation of Special Courts under the SC/ST Act, the High Court retains both original jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC and appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A of the Act – Special Court gets jurisdiction only when prima facie case under the Act is made out – Where such case is absent, Special Court cannot entertain anticipatory bail applications [Paras 24, 27].

Binding Precedent – Dismissal of SLP without reason – Order dated 31.01.2025 by Supreme Court dismissing SLPs on the forum issue not binding as precedent – Dismissal without reasons is not ratio decidendi and does not override express holdings of constitutionally binding judgments [Paras 24-26].

Supreme Court Precedents – Reaffirmation of legal position in Prathvi Raj Chauhan and Shajan Skaria – No bar on anticipatory bail where no prima facie case under SC/ST Act – Accused in such situations may approach the High Court under Section 438 CrPC [Paras 22-23, 27].

Decision: Reference answered – Held:

(1) When no prima facie case under SC/ST Act is made out, application for anticipatory bail is maintainable before High Court under Section 438 CrPC (now Section 482 BNSS, 2023)

(2) Special/Exclusive Special Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain anticipatory bail in such cases

(3) High Court retains concurrent original jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC and appellate jurisdiction under Section 14A of the Act [Para 27].

Negotiable Instruments – Section 138 Conviction – Compounding of Offence Permitted – Revision petitioner convicted for dishonour of cheque – Conviction upheld in appeal – During pendency of revision, parties entered into joint compromise – Entire amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- paid and acknowledged by complainant – Held: In view of settlement, offence compounded under Section 147 of NI Act – Conviction and sentence annulled – Petitioner acquitted [Paras 1–5, 7–10, 45–46]

Criminal Law – Compounding of Offences – Scope under NI Act vis-à-vis BNSS – Court held that Section 147 of NI Act, being a special law with non obstante clause, prevails over Section 359 of BNSS – Compounding permissible even post-conviction and at revisional stage – Inherent power of High Court under Section 442 BNSS invoked to secure ends of justice [Paras 20–24, 31–36, 41–43]

Judicial Discretion – Late Compounding of Offence – Despite conviction being affirmed in appeal, High Court permitted compounding owing to full settlement – Held: Purpose of NI Act is compensatory, not punitive – Delay in compromise not a bar when no prejudice caused and justice demands it – Cited Damodar S. Prabhu and Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. cases [Paras 12–14, 29–38, 44–46]

Special Law vs General Law – Interpretational Priority – Court reiterated principle that special law (NI Act) overrides general procedural provisions (BNSS) in event of conflict – Section 147 of NI Act allows compounding at any stage, including revision – Harmonious construction supports access to justice and early dispute resolution [Paras 32–36]

Compounding in Criminal Revision – Power of High Court – Even after dismissal of appeal, High Court retains power to permit compounding of offences under NI Act if parties have settled dispute – Inherent jurisdiction exercised under Section 442 BNSS to prevent miscarriage of justice and bring quietus to litigation [Paras 23–30, 40–42]

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Offence under Section 138 of the NI Act compounded based on Joint Memorandum of Compromise – Conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and affirmed in appeal annulled – Petitioner acquitted – Revision disposed of accordingly [Paras 45–46]

Bail – Sexual Assault, Extortion, and Cheating – Sections 318(4), 351(3) BNS, read with Sections 480 & 483 BNSS – Bail Granted – Petitioner accused of fraudulently collecting money, drugging, sexually assaulting complainant, extorting funds, and threatening with photographs – Delay of 14 months in lodging FIR, existence of live-in relationship, and counter-complaint lodged earlier by accused’s family considered – Court noted 68 days of custody and substantial progress of investigation – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 2, 5, 7-10].

Judicial Custody – Bail Considerations – Continued detention not necessary – Custodial interrogation substantially complete – Risk of absconding mitigated by conditions – Bail ordered subject to strict compliance [Paras 8-9].

Conditions of Bail – Accused to execute ₹20,000 bond with sureties – Weekly appearance before police – Not to leave district without permission – No intimidation of witnesses – Passport to be surrendered/affidavit to be filed – Breach of conditions to invite consequences [Para 9].

Decision – Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner enlarged on bail with conditions [Para 10].

Court Fees — Declaratory suit with injunctions relating to property — Injunction relief not independent of declaration — Market value basis applicable — Petition dismissed; impugned order upheld [Paras 2.1–2.4, 5-7].

Court Fees — Declaratory relief vs Cancellation — Distinction clarified — As per Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh (SC), executant must seek cancellation with ad valorem fee; non-executant in possession can pay fixed fee for declaration — However, if not in possession and consequential relief sought, ad valorem fee applies — Here, petitioner not in possession of yellow-marked portion, injunctions sought were consequential — Ad valorem valuation necessary [Paras 4-6].

Possession — Relevance for court fees — Petitioner not in possession of disputed portion used by respondents for ingress/egress — Separate gates and wall demarcation shown in site plan and photos — Hence consequential injunction relief flows from declaration — Market value valuation justified [Paras 5-6].

Valuation of plaint — No distinction between challenge to a clause or entire instrument — Declaration of nullity of Clause 22 of Sale Deed would affect entire deed with impact on property — Correct valuation must be at market value of subject property on date of suit [Para 6].

Decision — Impugned order valid — Petition dismissed — Plaintiff must value suit at market value and pay ad valorem court fees as per Court Fees Act and Delhi High Court Rules [Para 7].

Consumer Protection — Locus of “Complainant” — Brother filing on behalf of widow/children — Mother (Class-I heir) already co-petitioner — Liberal construction of welfare statute — Complaint maintainable — Petition under Article 227 dismissed; NCDRC requested to expedite final disposal [Paras 1, 8-18, 20-31, 32].

Consumer Protection — “Complainant” — Section 2(1)(b)(v) — Who can maintain complaint – In case of death of consumer, complaint may be instituted by “legal heir or representative” – Brother who initially described himself as trustee for widow/children is neither a stranger nor rank outsider – NCDRC had earlier recognized his standing; mother of deceased (a Class-I heir) was impleaded as co-petitioner, which relates back to institution – Held: Complaint maintainable and locus sustained [Paras 6-7, 12-15, 17-19, 23-31].

Succession — Class-I vs Class-II heirs — Relevance under Consumer Protection Act – The Act does not distinguish between Class-I and Class-II heirs; terms “legal heir” and “representative” are undefined and must not receive a rigid meaning – Even assuming strict succession principles, impleadment of mother (Class-I heir) cures objection; order attained finality [Paras 14, 29-31].

Procedural Law — Impleadment of legal representatives — Effect of Supreme Court order dated 26.04.2019 – SC directed heirs/legal representatives to implead themselves as co-petitioners within six weeks, with liberty to the opposite party to question locus if they declined – Non-service on widow/daughters did not imply resistance; repeated objections treated as dilatory [Paras 20-22, 27].

Consumer Law — Welfare legislation — Liberal construction – Consumer Protection Act being a welfare statute warrants liberal interpretation to avoid remedilessness for victim’s family; complaint can be filed by a family member; reliance placed on Spring Meadows Hospitals v. Harjol Ahluwalia (AIR 1998 SC 1801) [Paras 28-29].

Practice & Procedure — Final directions – Petition devoid of merit and dismissed; NCDRC requested to expedite disposal at final argument stage; memo of parties to conform to Supreme Court directions [Paras 31-33].

Eviction – Bona fide Requirement – Section 14(3), HP Urban Rent Control Act – Landlord entitled to choose premises suited to his condition – Subsequent availability of other flats did not defeat requirement – Eviction decree restored [Paras 14-18, 22-24].

Landlord’s Bona Fide Need – Petition filed in 2013 on ground of retirement and absence of accommodation at Dharamshala – Requirement established at trial; Rent Controller decreed eviction – Appellate Authority erred in doubting bona fides merely because other sets in same building became vacant during proceedings – Held, bona fide need must exist at institution and continue till final adjudication, but landlord’s age, convenience and road-level suitability of demised premises justified preference [Paras 12-14, 19-21].

Subsequent Events – Applied principle in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, AIR 1981 SC 1711 – Requirement must subsist till appellate stage – However, subsequent vacancies did not nullify landlord’s specific need for road-level flat suited to his old age – Tenant cannot dictate choice of premises [Paras 14-17, 21].

Supreme Court Guidance – Followed Kanhaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan, SLP(C) 21965/2022, decided 25.02.2025 – Landlord is best judge of which premises satisfies his need – Tenant cannot question landlord’s selection [Para 20].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition allowed – Judgment dated 29.05.2023 of Appellate Authority-II, Kangra set aside – Eviction order dated 22.02.2023 of Rent Controller-I, Kangra affirmed – No order as to costs [Paras 22-24].

Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 – S. 20-B – allottee-tenant’s full sale-price deposit (1973); Settlement Officer’s objections merely technical; prolonged State inaction – estoppel – Civil Court jurisdiction available – proprietary rights & injunction affirmed; RSAs 2581/4164/4193/4194 of 1999 dismissed with costs.

Declaration of ownership and injunction against dispossession - Land Tenure – Section 20-B, Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act – Vesting of Ownership Rights – Plaintiffs allotted surplus land in 1963 as tenants, deposited full sale consideration in 1973 under Tehsildar’s order – Settlement Officer raised only technical objections (uncertified girdawari, missing lease file) but no action taken for decades – Held: Proprietary rights vested upon deposit of price; officials’ negligence cannot defeat substantive rights – Plaintiffs declared owners in possession, revenue entries corrected, injunction granted [Paras 4-7].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Bar under Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act – State contended bar of jurisdiction – Held: Where valuable civil rights are threatened due to inaction of authorities, Civil Court jurisdiction is not ousted – Plaintiffs entitled to seek declaration and injunction against State [Paras 5, 10].

Estoppel – State’s Silence – Nearly two decades of inaction after full payment – State never demanded batai nor rectified technical defects – Held: State estopped from denying ownership to plaintiffs – Conduct indicated recognition of proprietary rights [Paras 6, 10].

Appellate Practice – Concurrent Findings – Trial Court decreed declaration and injunction, First Appellate Court affirmed – High Court found no legal infirmity in concurrent findings – Regular Second Appeals dismissed with costs [Paras 8, 11].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Plaintiffs declared owners in possession; State restrained from interference; sale certificate to issue – All four appeals dismissed with costs [Paras 10-11].

Proclaimed Person – Quashment – BNSS S.528; CrPC S.82(2); NI Act S.138 – Non-service at correct address; cumulative compliance under S.82(2) mandatory – Proclamation dated 21-09-2023 quashed conditionally (surrender by 30-09-2025; Rs 10,000 costs; bail on bonds) – Petition allowed; non-compliance to entail dismissal.

Proclaimed Person—Quashment—Section 528 BNSS, Section 82(2) CrPC, Section 138 NI Act—Proclamation set aside subject to surrender and costs—Non-service due to incorrect address; mandatory cumulative compliance with Section 82(2) CrPC emphasized; petitioner ready to join—Held: Impugned proclamation order quashed subject to surrender by 30.09.2025 and payment of Rs.10,000; bail on bonds and conditions; failure to comply: petition deemed dismissed [Paras 5, 7-9].

Service of Process—Incorrect Address—Zimni orders—Proclaimed Person—Where the complainant did not furnish the correct address and the accused had shifted residence, non-appearance not wilful or deliberate—Process (summons/bailable warrants/warrants) not received; declaration as proclaimed person unsustainable—Quashment warranted to secure presence and expedite trial [Paras 2-3, 6-8].

Criminal Procedure—Section 82(2) CrPC—Mandatory Cumulative Compliance—Court reiterates that the steps under Section 82(2) CrPC must be complied with cumulatively, not alternatively; failure vitiates proclamation proceedings—Reliance placed on Gurbir Singh Mundi v. State of Punjab (P&H, 16.12.2021) [Para 5].

Purpose of Proclamation—Securing Presence, Not Punishment—Objective is to compel appearance and advance adjudication; where the accused shows readiness to join and reasons for absence are justified, setting aside proclamation with conditions furthers the ends of justice [Paras 6-8].

Conditional Relief—Surrender, Costs, Bail & Undertakings—Proclamation order dated 21.09.2023 set aside subject to surrender by 30.09.2025; costs of Rs.10,000 to complainant (R-2); on furnishing bail/surety bonds, release on bail; undertake to appear on all dates; not to leave India without leave; trial court free to impose additional conditions—Non-compliance results in petition being deemed dismissed [Para 8-9].

Decision: Petition allowed; proclamation order dated 21.09.2023 quashed subject to conditions—Surrender by 30.09.2025; pay Rs.10,000 costs to R-2; bail on bonds; affidavit undertaking to appear; do not leave country without permission; trial court may impose further conditions; non-adherence will deem petition dismissed [Paras 8-9].