Criminal Complaint – Sections 156(3) and 202 Cr.P.C – Magistrate’s Discretion – Allegations of assault/intimidation arising from civil road dispute – Magistrate opted to hold enquiry under Section 202 instead of police investigation under Section 156(3) – Held: Magistrate’s discretion proper; no inevitable requirement for police investigation; Article 227 jurisdiction limited to cases of manifest miscarriage of justice – Petition dismissed [Paras 2-9, 12].

Civil Dispute – Criminal Allegations – Complaint disclosed four separate incidents (2022–2023) of assault, intimidation, and outraging of modesty – Court observed root cause was civil dispute over right of way; multiplicity of alleged crimes justified Magistrate’s cautious approach to proceed with enquiry rather than police referral [Paras 2-7].

Recovery/Investigation – Alleged use of rod and dagger years earlier – Court held police recovery/custodial interrogation not feasible or necessary; no ground to mandate investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. [Para 9].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope – Citing Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2009) and Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala (2019), Court reiterated Article 227 power is supervisory, not appellate; interference only in cases of patent illegality or manifest injustice – Not meant to substitute Magistrate’s discretion [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Magistrate’s decision to proceed under Section 202 Cr.P.C. upheld; no exceptional ground for interference under Article 227 – Petition dismissed with appreciation for assistance of Amicus Curiae [Para 12].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Inordinate Delay – Appeal filed by Gram Panchayat after six years and fourteen days of trial court decree – Petitioner failed to establish any sufficient cause for such delay – Appellate court rightly rejected delay application – Held: Petitioner was aware of the decree and participated in trial – Delay not caused by any unavoidable circumstance but due to administrative inaction and negligence – False assertions made in the affidavit about the decree being ex parte and unknown to the Panchayat – Such falsehoods strongly deprecated by the Court [Paras 3.3, 5.1–5.5, 9.1].

Public Body – Due Diligence – Change in Panchayat body cited as reason for delay – No documentary proof offered as to when new body took over or what steps were taken during six-year period – Court held that being a public authority does not entitle petitioner to automatic leniency under Limitation Act – Law equally applies to State and its instrumentalities unless justified by public interest or exceptional facts [Paras 5.6, 5.8, 6.0–6.5].

Limitation Law – Judicial Discretion – Exercise of discretion to condone delay must be based on bona fide explanation – Condonation denied where delay is unexplained, accompanied by false pleadings, or indicative of lack of diligence – Imposing conditions cannot validate a meritless condonation plea – Court emphasized that settled legal rights cannot be unsettled merely due to inaction or internal disorganization of a litigant body [Paras 6.1–6.5, 9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Delay of more than six years in filing appeal not condoned – No sufficient cause shown – False statements made in delay affidavit deprecated – Writ petition rejected with no order as to costs.

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.

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].

Criminal Writ - Preventive Detention – Grounds Vague – Documents Not Supplied – Detention Quashed – Detenu was detained under PIT NDPS Act vide order dated 20.12.2024 – Grounds of detention alleged past FIRs, many of which were closed or under trial – FIR details including status of bail not disclosed – Held: Failure to provide relevant documents and vague grounds violated Article 22(5) – Detention declared illegal [Paras 1–5, 7–14, 19].

Detention on Stale and Unsubstantiated Grounds – Violation of Constitutional Safeguards – FIRs from 2018, 2019, and 2024 cited with no proximate link to current activities – Some FIRs not admitted, others closed or without charges – Detaining authority failed to show compelling necessity for preventive detention – Held: Detention based on stale material is punitive, not preventive [Paras 3, 8, 15].

Bail Orders – Non-Supply Fatal – Detenu Denied Right to Effective Representation – Detaining authority failed to supply bail orders and did not refer to bail in FIR No. 22/2019 – Supreme Court judgments in Sowkath Ali, Ahamed Kutty and Rajinder Arora relied upon – Held: Denial of vital documents violates right to representation under Article 22(5) [Paras 10–11].

Judicial Process – Contemptuous Remarks by SSP in Dossier – Court Orders Disciplinary Action – SSP Srinagar accused judiciary of being influenced by detenu’s “power” and “position” – Court found such remarks contemptuous and undermining judicial integrity – Directed DGP J&K to seek explanation and take action against the officer, Mr. Imtiyaz Hussain [Paras 16–18].

Decision: Detention order quashed – Respondents directed to release the detenu forthwith, if not required in any other case – Copy of judgment to be sent to DGP J&K for compliance and action against SSP [Paras 19–21].

Second Appeal – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Non-consideration of additional evidence despite High Court’s earlier direction – First appellate judgment set aside and matter remanded – Appeal allowed [Paras 18-22].

Maintainability of Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC confined to substantial questions of law – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence unless findings of lower Courts are perverse or contrary to law – Applied settled principles [Paras 15-16].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Apex Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148 clarified that such application should be decided at final hearing stage if required for pronouncing judgment – In present case, dismissal of I.A.No.68/2016 prematurely by first appellate court was unsustainable [Paras 18].

Non-Compliance with Earlier High Court Order – Composite High Court in C.R.P.No.3017/2016 had restored I.A.No.68/2016 and directed disposal along with A.S.No.20/2013 – First appellate Court erred in deciding appeal alone ignoring I.A. – Such non-compliance vitiated judgment [Paras 18-20].

Consent of Parties – Both appellants and respondents conceded that remand to first appellate Court is proper with time-bound direction – No further oral evidence necessary; only disposal of appeal along with pending I.A. required [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 24.09.2018 in A.S.No.20/2013 set aside – Matter remanded to XV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nuzvid to decide A.S.No.20/2013 along with I.A.No.68/2016 on merits within two months – No order as to costs [Paras 21-22].

Service Law - Human Rights Commission – Chairperson’s pension entitlement – Rule 4 of 2002 Rules (as amended 2012) – “Parity clause” ensures equivalence with Chief Justice but does not create right to dual pensions – Legislative policy of “one career, one pension” affirmed – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 15–18, 23–27].

Pension – Legal Nature – Not a bounty but statutory right – Flows from Article 300A – Must be authorised by law – No pension dehors statutory framework – Once statutory entitlement exhausted, no further right to cumulative pensions unless expressly legislated [Paras 15–15.2].

Pension – Purpose – Secures dignified livelihood in retirement – Cannot be construed as enabling augmentation through multiple streams – Benevolent object subject to fiscal discipline – Interpretation must remain within statutory limits [Para 15.2].

Multiple Pensions – Policy against “pension stacking” – Principle of “one career, one pension” runs through Judges’ Acts, CCS Rules, and RCS Rules – Multiplicity of pensions impermissible unless statute clearly allows – Dual entitlements rejected [Paras 16, 16.1–16.3].

High Court Judges Act, 1954 – Section 14 proviso – Pension in lieu of and not in addition to prior pension – Express statutory signal against dual pensions – Applied analogously to SHRC framework [Para 16.2].

CCS & RCS Pension Rules – Both Central and State frameworks (1972, 1996, 2021) prohibit earning of two pensions for same service/post – Harmonious interpretation requires SHRC Rules to be read in consonance – Only one pension permissible [Para 16.3].

Rule 4, Rajasthan SHRC Rules (as amended 2012) – Language “salary, allowances, facilities and pension shall be the same as Chief Justice/Judge” is referential and parity-based – Not constitutive of new pension – Designed to avoid disadvantage, not to confer duplication [Paras 17.1–17.3].

Rule 4, First Proviso – Protective clause – Prevents variation of allowances/pension to disadvantage after appointment – Shields incumbents but does not create second pensionary stream [Para 17.3].

Rule 4, Second Proviso – Salary of Chairperson to be reduced by amount of pre-existing pension/commutation/gratuity – Express mechanism of adjustment – Demonstrates legislative intent against double pension – Ensures parity without duplication [Para 17.4].

Comparative Tribunals – Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007; AFT Rules, 2009; Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 – All adopt “pay reduced by pension” model – Explicitly prohibit additional pension – Petitioner himself served as AFT Chairperson under same rule – Dual claim untenable [Paras 17.6–17.7].

Judicial Analogy – District Judges elevated to High Courts and SC Judges serving in Tribunals draw only one pension based on last substantive office – No multiplicity permitted – Applied to reject claim [Para 17.7].

Lokayukta Precedent – Justice Mahendra Bhushan Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2001) distinguished – Lokayukta Act & 1974 Rules contained express pension provision – SHRC Rules silent – Single Judge did not consider dual pension question – Ratio not binding – Precedent inapplicable [Para 18].

Reliance on SC Cases – Gurnam Singh (1982) and Shardul Singh (1970) – Pension integral to “conditions of service” – Ratio accepted in principle but held inapplicable – Do not confer dual pension entitlement [Para 19].

Constitutional Challenge – Articles 14, 16, 21 – Denial of dual pension neither arbitrary nor discriminatory – Rational classification based on statutory design – Right to dignified life already secured by existing pension under Judges’ Act – No violation made out [Para 21.3].

Legitimate Expectation – Internal Finance Department notings cannot create enforceable expectation – No past practice of granting dual pensions to SHRC Chairpersons – Doctrine inapplicable [Para 21.2].

Comparative Jurisprudence – UK, US, Canada, Germany, Cyprus, Pakistan, EU – All disfavor multiple pensions unless explicitly legislated – Approaches range from strict prohibition (Pakistan, EU) to capped accumulation (Germany) – Supports single-pension model [Paras 21.4, 22].

Decision – Chairperson of SHRC not entitled to separate pension in addition to judicial pension already drawn – Rule 4 is a parity clause, not source of new entitlement – Petition dismissed – No costs [Paras 23–23.2].

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]

Partition – family settlement (13.12.2003) upheld as binding despite missing “original” – adverse inference for non-examined defendant – preliminary decree for partition and injunction granted; appeals allowed

Partition – Family Settlement – Exhibit A1 Treated as Original – Preliminary Decree Passed – Plaintiffs relied on Exh.A1 family settlement dated 13.12.2003 – Though “original” missing, mediator (PW3) testified to handing it over to defendant – all signatures present on last page – Defendants failed to enter witness box; adverse inference drawn – Exh.A1 accepted as genuine; partition preliminary decree granted in tune with A1–A5 sketches/drafts [Paras 12-23, 26-28].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata & Partial Partition – Suit Maintainable – Earlier partition suit dismissed on basis of alleged will – Present suit based on subsequent family settlement; hence not barred by res judicata – Exclusion of certain properties justified as widow/daughters had no share therein; not bad for partial partition [Paras 11, 19-21].

Evidence – Non-examination of Party – Adverse Inference – 3rd defendant (widow of predeceased son) failed to depose – Held: adverse inference against her plea of fabrication of Exh.A1 – Plea of tampering rejected [Paras 14-15, 23-25].

Injunction – Rights of Co-owners – Permanent Injunction Granted – Plaintiff in O.S.193/2008 sought to restrain interference with quarry operations – In light of binding family settlement and possession of demarcated shares, injunction decree granted; prayer for damages rejected [Paras 27, 29-30].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Common judgment set aside – O.S.232/2006 decreed; preliminary decree for partition passed in terms of Exh.A1–A5; O.S.193/2008 decreed for permanent injunction (damages denied); parties to bear own costs [Paras 28-30].