Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – The Allahabad High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to quash the criminal proceedings in four interconnected cases. The cases involved allegations of kidnapping and abduction for marriage, with applicants seeking to quash the charges and subsequent proceedings. [Para 1, 18]

Factual Matrix – Each case shared a common factual pattern where the couples, having attained majority, had eloped and married against the wishes of their families. Subsequent criminal proceedings were initiated by the families alleging kidnapping and abduction under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC. [Para 6, 11]

Legal Analysis – The Court analyzed the legal provisions and the circumstances of each case, noting that the couples had voluntarily chosen their partners and were living as married couples with children. The Court observed that continuing the criminal proceedings would cause undue hardship and stress to the families involved. [Para 10-17]

Judicial Approach – Balancing Law and Social Dynamics – The Court emphasized the need to balance strict legal provisions with the dynamics of society and individual rights. It acknowledged the role of the judiciary in considering the broader implications of its decisions on individuals and societal order. [Para 15, 16]

Precedents – Reference was made to similar judgments by the Supreme Court of India, which upheld the rights of individuals over the age of 18 to make their own life choices, including the choice of a life partner. [Para 13, 14]

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicants, citing the need for a humane approach in the application of law and considering the well-being of the young couples and their children. The Court held that further prosecution would only cause unwarranted hardship. [Para 18, 19]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Summoning Order – Applicants sought to quash summoning order issued in relation to alleged dishonor of cheques under Section 138 of the N.I. Act – Allegation of issuance of cheques in lieu of service fee per MoU – Applicants contested validity of authorization and claimed cheques were misplaced and presented fraudulently – Court found significant procedural lapses and errors in summoning order by trial court – Lack of proper inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and mechanical issuance of summoning order noted [Paras 1-19].

Negotiable Instruments – Validity of Cheques – Applicants argued no enforceable debt existed at the time cheques were issued – Discrepancies in signatures on cheques and authorization letter questioned – Court observed differences in signatures on cheques and sale deed, corroborated by forensic expert – Forensic evidence supported claim of different signatories on cheques [Paras 23-25].

Legal Interpretation – Section 138 of N.I. Act – Emphasis on strict interpretation of penal provisions – Court cited necessity of proving legally enforceable debt or liability for offense under Section 138 – Court highlighted Supreme Court's stance on preconditions for valid initiation of prosecution under N.I. Act [Paras 28-32].

Judicial Review – Exercise of Inherent Powers – High Court invoked inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process – Summoning order and entire proceedings found unsustainable – Directions issued for fresh order by trial court within prescribed timeline [Paras 33-41].

Decision – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed – Summoning order dated 22.07.2022 and entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 83520 of 2021 set aside – Case remanded to trial court for fresh consideration [Para 40].

Petitioner's Challenge to FIR Transfers – Petitioners challenged the transfer of FIRs related to alleged violations of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Act to different regional offices of CBCID – Alleged violation of fundamental rights due to potential for multiple arrests and investigations for the same incident – Issue of whether different transactions at various company malls constitute separate crimes [Paras 3-9, 14].

Counter Affidavit by Respondents – Respondents denied allegations – Argued each mall transaction constitutes a separate crime, warranting separate investigations – Asserted that combining multiple complaints could lead to confusion and jeopardize justice [Paras 6-7, 15-16].

Court's Analysis and Decision – Court observed that each mall establishment of petitioners' company in different locations led to separate incidents and crimes – Held that separate investigations for each transaction were justified – Dismissed writ petitions, finding no merit – Granted liberty to petitioners to challenge the final report if irregularities are found [Paras 12-19].

Specific Performance of Sale Agreement – Upholding trial court’s decision for specific performance – Defendant (Appellant) challenged the authenticity of the sale agreement dated 25.05.2009 and receipt of advance payment – Trial court findings confirmed, establishing the agreement's validity and appellant's contractual obligations. [Paras 8, 15, 24-26, 34, 55-56]

Dispute Over Execution of Agreement – Defendant claimed agreement (Ex.A.1) was fabricated and denied executing it – Trial court and High Court found appellant's claims unsubstantiated, validating the respondent's claims and documents presented. [Paras 17-19, 21-23, 25, 55]

Financial Capacity and Readiness to Perform Contract – Plaintiff (Respondent) demonstrated financial capacity and readiness to perform the contract, contradicting defendant's assertions – High Court emphasized importance of readiness and willingness in specific performance suits. [Paras 30-32, 35-37, 42-43]

Conduct of Parties and Discretion in Specific Performance – High Court observed defendant's conduct aimed at evading contractual obligations – Exercised judicial discretion in favor of specific performance, as per established legal principles. [Paras 40-41, 47-49, 53-54]

Modification of Trial Court Judgment – High Court modified trial court's decree – Directed respondent to deposit balance sale consideration with interest, post which appellant to execute sale deed; failing which, court to execute deed in favor of respondent. [Paras 57-58]

Labour Court Ruling on Employee Reinstatement – Challenged by Daulat Panipurvatha Sahakari Sanstha – Writ petitions filed against Labour Court Satara's decision granting reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits from termination date for respondent employees – Oral termination without inquiry, contrary to principles of natural justice and Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [Para 1, 3]

Petitioners' Defense – Absence of Industry Status – Argument that petitioners are not an industry per Section 2(J) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Respondent's unauthorized absence leading to termination and financial loss for petitioners – Disputed by Labour Court findings. [Para 4, 5]

Determination of Industry Status – Labour Court's Reliance on Apex Court Judgment – Bangalore Water Supply case referenced – Petitioner cooperative society deemed an industry under Section 2(J), despite operating on a no-profit basis and being registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. [Para 6]

Financial Capacity and Back-wages Dispute – Petitioners' claim of financial incapacity to pay full back-wages – Lack of evidence to support financial distress – Labour Court's decision on reinstatement with full back-wages and benefits upheld. [Para 7]

No Interference under Writ Jurisdiction – High Court finds no compelling reason to interfere with Labour Court's order – Dismissal of both writ petitions without costs. [Para 8, 9]

Appeal Against FIR Order Under SC/ST Act – Challenging order for FIR against ACP Bijender Singh under SC/ST Act for alleged misconduct during investigation of FIR No. 261/2019 – Original case involved parking dispute between complainant and police personnel, leading to allegations of atrocity under the SC/ST Act. [Paras 1, 2]

Investigation Conduct and Chargesheet Filing – Appellant, as Investigation Officer, filed chargesheet under SC/ST Act and IPC without arresting accused, citing Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar – Complainant's application against appellant for not supplying chargesheet copy and not arresting accused. [Paras 3-8, 18-20, 66-69]

Administrative Enquiry Requirement – Emphasis on necessity for administrative enquiry before initiating criminal proceedings against a public servant – Appellant exonerated in administrative enquiry. [Paras 11-15, 43-47, 57]

Natural Justice Principles – Allegations of violation of principles of natural justice due to absence of hearing opportunity for appellant. [Paras 13, 14, 57]

Court's Observation on Investigation Role – Court's analysis on limits of judicial interference in investigation process – Reinforcement that investigation is police’s domain, and court's role begins post chargesheet filing. [Paras 62-65]

Order – Impugned order for FIR against appellant set aside – Emphasis on appropriate use of SC/ST Act provisions and judicial prudence in handling disputes involving public servants. [Paras 76-80]

of the arresting authority must be based on pertinent material, and compliance with procedural safeguards is essential to uphold the legality of an arrest. [Para 61-66]

Constitutional Law – Right to Liberty and Fair Procedure – The Court reiterated the constitutional guarantee of individual liberty and the requirement for a fair and transparent procedure in matters of arrest and detention. It was held that non-compliance with mandatory legal requirements in the process of arrest infringes upon the fundamental rights of the individuals involved. The Court stressed the need for law enforcement Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC and PMLA 2002 – Illegal Arrest and Detention – Two petitions under Section 482 CrPC by Dilbag Singh and Kulwinder Singh were adjudicated, concerning their arrests under the PMLA 2002 – The legality of arrest orders, arrest memos, and remand orders was assessed in light of the Supreme Court’s rulings – Petitioners claimed they were illegally detained and arrested in violation of PMLA provisions [Para 1, 3-7].

Criminal Procedure – Illegal Detention and Arrest – Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 – The Court analyzed the compliance of Section 19 of the PMLA 2002 in the context of the arrest of the petitioners. The Court held that the arresting authorities failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 19, resulting in unlawful detention and illegal arrest of the petitioners. The Court observed that the authorities did not provide written grounds of arrest immediately after arrest and failed to forward the relevant materials to the Adjudicating Authority as mandated under Section 19(2). [Para 55-66]

Judicial Scrutiny of Arrest Procedure – The Court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to statutory procedures in arrest cases, particularly under special acts like the PMLA. It was noted that individual liberty is a paramount right, and any arrest made in violation of prescribed legal procedures is liable to be set aside. The Court pointed out that the subjective satisfaction agencies to observe due diligence and procedural safeguards in executing their powers, especially under stringent statutes like the PMLA. [Para 3, 22-25]

Criminal Procedure – Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 – Territorial Jurisdiction and Compliance – The Court deliberated on two primary issues concerning Section 19(3) of the PMLA: the lack of judicial scrutiny regarding compliance with Section 19 in remand orders, and whether there was any basis to justify the Gurugram Court's jurisdiction prior to the remand on 09.01.2024. The Court found that the Special Court failed to appropriately apply its mind to ensure compliance with Section 19, including Section 19(3), and that the initial remand lacked a proper territorial jurisdiction basis. The Court recognized that the final decision on jurisdiction should be based on the entirety of the evidence presented during the trial. [Para 67-68]

Judicial Scrutiny and Application of Mind in Remand Orders – The Court emphasized the necessity of judicial scrutiny and proper application of mind by the Special Court in remand orders, particularly in ensuring compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 19 of the PMLA. The Court observed that a lack of such scrutiny in the initial stages renders subsequent proceedings invalid. [Para 67, 73-74]

Illegal Detention and Subsequent Proceedings – The Court held that the detention of the petitioners from 04.01.2024 to 08.01.2024 amounted to illegal arrest, which subsequently led to the violation of the provisions of Section 19 read with Section 167 of the CrPC. The Court concluded that all orders, including the remand orders arising out of the illegal arrest, were invalid and set aside. [Para 76(b)]

Violation of PMLA Provisions – The Court found violations of both Section 19(2) and Section 19(1) of the PMLA, deeming the actions of the Enforcement Directorate, including the arrest and remand orders, as illegal and warranting setting aside. [Para 76(c-d)]

Decision – Quashing of Arrest, Remand Orders, and Consequential Actions – Based on the findings, the Court allowed both petitions, quashed the arrest orders, arrest memos, remand orders, and all consequential orders – held - the arrest and subsequent remand orders as void due to non-compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA. It was held that the detention of the petitioners from the date of their initial confinement until their formal arrest was illegal, and all subsequent actions based on the illegal arrest were set aside. The Court ordered the release of the petitioners and directed the authorities to adhere strictly to legal provisions in future actions. [Para 53, 66 – 76, 78]

Incident and Conviction Background – Durga Prasad’s conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC for causing death by head injuries with brick pieces in a dispute over drainage clearing – Trial court’s life imprisonment sentence – Appellants challenged the judgment. [Paras 1-3, 36]

Prosecution Evidence and Testimonies – Reliance on testimonies of eyewitnesses (PW1 and PW2), medical evidence (PW5), and other formal witnesses – Eyewitnesses recounted the incident, and medical officer confirmed the fatal injuries. [Paras 4, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 15-17, 19-21, 23-24, 30-31, 35]

Defence’s Contention and Lack of Evidence – Defence’s argument of accidental fall leading to injuries – No evidence produced by the defense to substantiate their claim. [Paras 5-6, 22, 25]

Assessment of Medical Evidence – Evaluation of injuries and their causation – Inferences drawn from post-mortem and medical reports – Determination of the nature of injuries and their impact. [Paras 8, 18, 20, 32-33]

Legal Principles on ‘Intention’ and ‘Knowledge’ – Analysis of the intent and knowledge aspects under IPC Sections 299, 300, 302, 304, 323, 324, 325 – Reference to Supreme Court precedents. [Paras 26-31, 34-35]

Modified Conviction – Alteration of conviction from Section 302/34 IPC to Section 325/34 IPC – Sentencing to three years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000, with compensation to the victim’s family. [Paras 36-37]

Discharge of Bail and Compliance – Instructions for surrender, discharge of bail, and compliance with the modified judgment. [Paras 37-38]

Decision: Appeal allowed in part with a modified conviction and sentence.

NDPS - Bail - Gurpreet Singh, arrested for possession of 26.790 kgs of Cannabis, seeks bail citing procedural irregularities and trial delays [Paras 1, 5, 7, 16, 25].

Bail Justification on Grounds of Trial Delay – Applicant's counsel arguing for bail based on significant delay in trial progress, citing various Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents emphasizing the importance of speedy trial. [Para 5, 16-21, 24]

Sampling Procedure Non-Compliance – Allegations of prosecution's non-compliance with the prescribed sampling procedure for narcotics, as per Standing Orders No.1/88 and 1/89, leading to a contention of non-fulfillment of stringent bail standards under Section 37 of NDPS Act. [Para 6, 14-15]

State's Counter-Arguments – Emphasis on the seriousness of NDPS Act offences and the necessity of stringent bail conditions under Section 37. Arguments against considering trial delay as a sole reason for granting bail and asserting that Standing Orders are advisory, not mandatory. [Para 8-11]

Court's Analysis and Decision – Court acknowledging the necessity to satisfy conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act for bail but recognizing the rights under Article 21 for protection of liberty in face of trial delay and non-compliance with sampling procedure. Applicant granted bail considering these factors and set conditions. [Para 12-15, 22-28, 29]

Bail Granted - Under strict conditions including not leaving the country without court permission, appearing for hearings, and not indulging in criminal activity [Para 29].