Delay Condonation – Article 227 – Law of Limitation – Delay of Over Three Years – Petition Dismissed – Defendants sought condonation citing Covid-19 and alleged ignorance of decree; Court found they were aware through counsel and execution proceedings; held gross negligence and indolence not excusable – Appellate Court rightly rejected delay condonation – High Court upheld refusal [Paras 8–14].

Specific Performance – Execution of Decree – Sale Deed Registered – Once execution completed, subsequent challenge barred – Defendants’ silence during execution proceedings proved lack of diligence; no ground to reopen concluded decree [Paras 4.1–4.3, 9–10].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limits of Article 227 – Court cannot interfere merely because a second view is possible – Interference limited to jurisdictional error; appellate court order well-reasoned – Petition rejected [Para 15].

Decision – Writ Petition Rejected – Impugned Order Confirmed – Rule discharged; no order as to costs [Paras 16–18].

Application 156(3) CrPC against singer – Registration of FIR - Lack of jurisdiction and absence of material details – Revisional application dismissed.

Hate Speech – Application under Section 156(3) CrPC – Registration of FIR - Offences under Sections 153, 153A, 295A, 298 IPC – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought FIR against singer for allegedly outraging religious sentiments through live concert speech – Magistrate rejected for want of jurisdiction – High Court upheld rejection noting absence of proof of date, time, or place of concert and that accused had no nexus with jurisdiction of Shyampukur PS [Paras 5-7, 16-17, 27].

Jurisdiction – Powers under Section 156(3) CrPC – Territorial Limits – Magistrate can only direct investigation within territorial jurisdiction – No material linking alleged incident to Shyampukur PS – Order rejecting application held correct [Paras 17, 19-20].

Zero FIR – Section 173 BNSS – Scope Explained – Zero FIR enables prompt registration irrespective of territorial jurisdiction, to be transferred to appropriate PS – However, even Zero FIR requires basic details (date, place) of incident – Mere social media clips without authentication insufficient [Paras 21-24].

Supreme Court Directions – Hate Speech – Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India (2023) – State authorities must suo motu register FIRs in hate speech cases – In instant case, no suo motu action taken as no concrete incident shown [Para 25].

Decision – Revisional application dismissed – Magistrate’s refusal to direct FIR registration upheld – No illegality, infirmity, or perversity found [Paras 27-28].

Commercial Courts Act – Definition of Commercial Dispute – Scope – Suit based on promissory notes – Petitioners contended that such suits do not fall under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act and that promissory notes are not "mercantile documents" – Held: Promissory notes executed for business expansion and printed in commercial format are commercial in nature – Plaintiff shown to be a registered money lender – Transaction falls within ordinary dealings of financiers – Promissory notes qualify as mercantile documents for purposes of Section 2(1)(c) – Commercial Court rightly exercised jurisdiction [Paras 14–23].

Mercantile Document – Interpretation – Reference to Section 137 of Transfer of Property Act found to be misplaced – That section refers to "mercantile document of title to goods" and is not applicable to negotiable instruments like promissory notes – Supreme Court in Bharat Barrel case recognised negotiable instruments as mercantile instruments – Promissory notes held to be within ambit of mercantile documents under Commercial Courts Act [Paras 18–21].

Parallel Proceedings – No bar under law for parallel civil and criminal proceedings – Section 138 NI Act proceedings for dishonour of cheque and civil suit for recovery are distinct – No merit in petitioner’s plea of double jeopardy – Commercial Court’s view upheld [Para 16].

Commercial Dispute – Party vs. Transaction Specific – Commercial Courts Act requires examination of transaction's nature – In present case, plaintiff a registered money lender and loan for business purposes clearly stated – Commercial nature of transaction established – Suit maintainable before Commercial Court [Para 22].

Section 12-A – Mandatory Pre-institution Mediation – Application – One of the suits (COS No.10 of 2023) justified urgency and obtained interim relief – Section 12-A dispensed with – Other suit (COS No.9 of 2022) filed prior to Patil Automation judgment (20.08.2022) – Held: Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC not permissible – Commercial Court to refer parties to time-bound mediation in COS No.9 of 2022 as per directions in Dhanbad Fuels [Paras 33–39].

Judicial Review – Rejection of Plaint – No ground made out to interfere with reasoned orders of Commercial Court rejecting applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – No jurisdictional error or perversity found – Revision petitions dismissed [Para 40].

Decision: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – Promissory notes found to be commercial documents – Suits maintainable before Commercial Court – No ground to reject plaints – COS No.9 of 2022 to be referred to mediation – COS No.10 of 2023 validly proceeded with urgent relief – No costs – Miscellaneous petitions also dismissed.

Bail – BNS ss.103(1), 106 & 238 – Hunting misfire; decapitation post-mortem – Prima facie not murder under s.103(1); case falls under s.106; s.238 bailable – Gruesomeness irrelevant to bail where statute makes offence bailable – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 2-3, 11-16, 17-18].

Bail – Parameters for grant – Supreme Court guidance reiterated – Nature of accusations, manner of commission, gravity, role, antecedents, risk of tampering/absconding and overall desirability to be weighed – Caution against superficial application of parameters – Applied to facts [Paras 8-10].

Homicide – Hunting misfire – Illustration (c) to IPC s.299 / BNS s.100 – Where shot is fired at supposed wild fowl and a concealed person is killed, intention to kill a human not made out – Liability, if any, for negligence; not murder – Historical rationale from 1837 Law Commissioners’ Report noted – Applied to hold prima facie s.106 BNS attracted, not s.103(1) [Paras 11-14].

Evidence – Destruction of evidence – BNS s.238 – Post-mortem decapitation and burning of corpse – Offence statutorily bailable; court’s moral disapproval cannot override legislative classification – Gruesome nature of conduct cannot, by itself, defeat bail where statutory scheme treats it as bailable [Paras 15-16].

Bail – Decision – Prima facie absence of non-bailable offence; investigation completed and charge-sheet filed; conditions imposed – Personal bond ₹1,00,000 with one surety; attendance, non-tampering, travel/address intimation, passport surrender, and contact details to Police/Court; breach to entail cancellation – Bail granted [Paras 16-19].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Suspension of Sentence – Conditional Deposit – Appellate Court had suspended the sentence under Section 138 NI Act, subject to deposit of 20% of compensation – Petitioner challenged the condition citing financial hardship and failure to record reasons by the Appellate Court – Held: As per Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari and Muskan Enterprises, direction to deposit 20% is not mandatory and should be applied with judicial discretion – Absence of recorded reasons renders the impugned order unsustainable – Matter remitted for reconsideration [Paras 1, 3, 5–10]

Interpretation of Section 148 NI Act – Discretionary Nature – Use of the word “may” in Section 148(1) indicates legislative intent to confer discretion on the Appellate Court – Supreme Court has clarified that deposit may be waived in exceptional cases, but reasons must be recorded – Impugned order lacked such reasoning – Order set aside [Paras 6–8]

Reference to Larger Bench – Validity of Mandatory Deposit – Issue regarding whether condition of deposit under Section 148 is mandatory or directory is pending before Larger Bench in CRM-M-779-2025 and CRM-M-8498-2025 – Held: Operation of impugned order stayed till decision of Larger Bench – Suspension of sentence to continue in the interim [Para 11]

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 19.05.2025 set aside – Matter remanded to Appellate Court for reconsideration in view of Jamboo Bhandari and Muskan Enterprises – Suspension of sentence to remain in effect pending fresh adjudication.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – execution of enhanced award – doctrine of merger – 18% interest on enhanced compensation relates back to 2017 District Commission order – unjust enrichment plea rejected – Article 227 petition dismissed.

Consumer Law – Execution of Enhanced Award – Interest on Enhanced Amount – Petition Dismissed – DCDRC awarded compensation with 18% interest (2017); State Commission later enhanced amount (2023) – Held: By doctrine of merger, enhanced amount relates back; interest applies from original award date – Interest not “interest on interest”; statutory and precedential basis affirmed – Petitioners’ plea of unjust enrichment rejected [Paras 32-34].

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Maintainability – Article 227 – Petition Maintainable but No Interference Warranted – Court clarified against ex parte State Commission orders, remedy lies before National Commission (s.51(5)); otherwise Article 227 can be invoked – In present case, orders of District and State Commissions affirmed as proper; supervisory jurisdiction not exercised [Paras 22-30].

Interest – Reasonableness – High Rate of 18% – Validity – Petitioners argued excessive and contrary to Experion Developers (2022) & Suneja Towers (2023) – Held: Rate awarded by consumer fora intended as deterrent to delay; not compound interest; cannot be interfered with in supervisory review [Paras 13-16, 34].

Decision – Miscellaneous Petition Dismissed – Orders dated 03.10.2023 (DCDRC-II) and 09.11.2023 (SCDRC, Bhopal) affirmed; enhanced compensation with 18% interest payable from 18.01.2017 – No interference warranted [Para 35].

Local Body Elections – Ward Formation/Delimitation – Const. Arts. 243-O & 243-ZG – High Court cannot interfere once objections heard and final notification issued – Petitions dismissed; elections to proceed per SC mandate.

Local Body Elections – Ward Formation – Constitutional Bar – Arts. 243-C, 243-K, 243-O, 243-ZG, 329(a) – Delimitation and allotment of seats, once finalized after objections and hearing, immune from writ interference – Only narrow exception: no objections invited/hearing denied – Entertaining challenges would stall elections – Bar strictly applied [Paras 3-12, 18-21].

Elections – Timely Conduct – Supreme Court Order dated 06.05.2025 (Rahul Ramesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra) – Directed SEC to notify Zilla Parishad elections within 4 months – High Court held bound not to derail process – Petitions seeking to challenge ward notifications rejected [Paras 12-14, 19-21].

Ward Delimitation – Govt. Order dated 12.06.2025 prescribing procedure – Based on 2011 Census, contiguity, natural boundaries, Gram Panchayat integrity, voter convenience – Hearing granted and reasons recorded by Divisional Commissioners – Notifications upheld; no arbitrariness found [Paras 15-18, 23-27].

Jurisdiction under Article 226 – High Court not appellate authority – Cannot decide factual disputes of inclusion/exclusion of villages – Proper forum: election petitions – Precedents followed: State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti, Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P., Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission, Jadhav Shankar Dnyandeo v. Collector, Satara [Paras 4-11, 20].

Delay/Acquiescence – Petitioners who failed to object to draft notification cannot later challenge final ward notification – Belated challenges held impermissible, especially when elections imminent [Paras 11, 21].

Decision – All writ petitions dismissed – Final ward formation notifications upheld – No interference under Article 226; petitioners relegated to remedies under election law [Paras 21-22].

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]

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].