Petition for ‘No Objection Certificate’ – Petitioner challenges the rejection of his application to open a retail meat shop. The rejection is based on an unfavorable police report, citing proximity to religious places and potential unauthorized meat sales. [Para 1-3]

Presumptive Grounds – The court finds that the ground of potential unauthorized meat sales is presumptive and not a valid reason for refusing the ‘no objection certificate.’ [Para 4]

Inconsistency in Rules – Petitioner points out that other meat shops in the same area have received ‘no objection certificates.’ The court acknowledges this inconsistency and notes that no religious places are within a 50-meter radius of these shops. [Para 5-6]

Court’s Direction – The Superintendent of Police is directed to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order within four weeks. The licencing authority is also directed to consider the matter in accordance with law. [Para 7]

Writ Petition Allowed – The writ petition stands allowed, and the matter is to be reconsidered in accordance with the court’s directions. [Para 8]

Criminal Revision – Quashing of Proceedings – Narcotics Case – Petitioner seeks quashing of proceedings and orders – Allegations of involvement in storing and transporting contraband – Statements of co-accused implicating the petitioner – Initial discharge application rejected – Further investigation ordered – Prima facie case established against the petitioner – Revision dismissed, trial to proceed. [Para 1-40]

Prima Facie Case – Sufficiency of evidence to proceed to trial – Co-accused statements alleging petitioner's involvement – Alleged storage and transportation of contraband – Contradictory statements by co-accused – Materials showing petitioner's connection – Prima facie case established against the petitioner. [Para 33-34]

Confessions of Co-Accused – Use of confessions as evidence against co-accused – Confessions lending assurance to other evidence – Confessions not treated as substantive evidence – Prima facie case to be established with other evidence before considering confessions – Relevant legal principles applied. [Para 26]

Involvement and Investigation – Accusations of storage and transportation of contraband – Statements of accused and co-accused – Contraband loaded from petitioner's godown – Statements recorded under relevant provisions – Investigating officer appointed for further investigation – Prima facie involvement established for trial. [Para 21-22, 29-31]

Trial Proceeding – Dismissal of revision – Direction for trial to proceed against petitioner – Prima facie case against petitioner established – Involvement in storing and transporting contraband – Directions to Trial Court for compliance. [Para 35-38]

Civil Revision Petition – Land Dispute – Prima facie case for injunction – Discrepancy in revenue records for a couple of years – Plaintiffs' claim to land ownership and possession supported by recent records – Prima facie case in favor of plaintiffs – Interim injunction granted – Lower courts' reliance on irrelevant documents for denial of injunction not justified – Orders of lower courts set aside – Suit to be disposed of by considering all relevant documents. [Para 15-17]

Interlocutory Application – Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC – Suit for partition of ancestral property – Allegation of mortgage of property by defendant without plaintiff’s knowledge – Defendant’s contention of initiation of SARFAESI proceedings – Defendant’s claim of Civil Court lacking jurisdiction – Trial Court granting temporary injunction – Appeal against granting of injunction – Examination of whether Trial Court erred in entertaining injunction application and the jurisdiction of Civil Court in such matters. [Para 2-16]

Mortgage and Loan Recovery – Dispute over Ancestral Property – Secured Debt under SARFAESI Act – Plaintiff’s claim of ancestral joint family property – Defendant No.1 mortgaging the property to the appellant-bank – Loan becoming NPA – Plaintiff’s contention of defendant No.1’s irresponsible use of loan – Defendant No.1’s property being self-acquired – Property devolving under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act – Three generations needed for ancestral property – Plaintiff’s residence with defendant No.1 – Loan obtained when plaintiff and defendant No.2 were minors – Jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act for secured creditor to enforce security interest – Bar on Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act – Plaintiff seeking injunction against bank’s possession – Fraud allegation without particulars insufficient – Court’s analysis of previous judgments – Plaintiff’s motive to stall recovery proceedings – Trial Court’s erroneous injunction order set aside. [Para 17-37]

Property Ownership and Loan Recovery – Suit to Prevent Possession – Plaintiff’s claim of ancestral property – Defendant No.1’s mortgage to appellant-bank – Loan becoming NPA – Plaintiff alleging defendant No.1’s neglect and misuse of loan – Defendant No.1’s property being self-acquired – Property devolving under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiff residing with defendant No.1 – Loan obtained when plaintiff and defendant No.2 were minors – Jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act for secured creditor to enforce security interest – Bar on Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act – Plaintiff seeking injunction against bank’s possession – Fraud allegation without particulars insufficient – Court’s analysis of previous judgments – Plaintiff’s motive to stall recovery proceedings – Trial Court’s erroneous injunction order set aside. [Para 17-37]

Matrimonial Dispute - Quashing of FIRs - Settlement between parties - FIR No. 843/2020 and FIR No. 477/2020 registered at PS New Usmanpur and PS Amar Colony, respectively - Allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, and POCSO Act offenses. [Para 1-2]

Settlement reached between the parties before the Mediation Centre - Mutual consent for separation and divorce granted - Withdrawal of all claims and disputes - Custody of minor children decided. [Para 4]

FIRs stem from misunderstandings - Inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC - Pragmatic approach adopted - Continuance of FIRs serves no useful purpose - No objection to compromise from complainant - Possibility of conviction bleak - FIRs quashed. [Para 8-11]

Rights of children born out of the wedlock preserved - Petitioner, a lawyer, directed to handle ten Pro bono cases as part of the settlement - Compliance report to be filed within a month. [Para 12-14]

Revision Petition – Application for Additional Evidence- Accused/petitioner challenges the order that declined his application for leading additional evidence under Section 391 Cr.P.C. – Accused was convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. [Para 1-2]

Dishonored Cheque – Signature Dispute- Petitioner contends that the signature on the dishonored cheque does not belong to him and argues for the necessity of additional evidence through a handwriting and fingerprint expert. [Para 3]

Opposition to Additional Evidence- Respondent argues against the necessity of additional evidence, citing case laws that deem it unnecessary if a cheque is not returned due to a mismatch of signature. [Para 4]

Legal Precedents and Expert Opinion- Coordinate Bench of this Court and other High Courts opine that expert opinion is not required unless the bank returns the cheque due to a mismatch in signature. [Para 5-6]

Factual Assessment and Signature Dispute- Cheque was dishonored due to a closed bank account and not due to mismatched signature; petitioner's claim deemed an afterthought. [Para 7]

Discretion Under Section 391 Cr.P.C.- Appellate Court has the discretion to allow additional evidence only when necessary for a just decision; should not be used to remedy negligence or omissions. [Para 8]

Final Decision - Petition lacks merit; application for additional evidence is dismissed and the appellate court’s order is upheld. [Para 9]

 Facts - Marriage between petitioners, both physicians, was solemnized on 19.08.2017 - two children, including a son named Agam Pratap Singh born on 01.11.2019. Respondent No.3, the Superintendent of Police, is married to petitioner No.1’s brother but has no children of her own. She took custody of Agam Pratap Singh while petitioner No.1 was away for a fellowship. The case revolves around the legality of this custody and the adoption process. [Para 3]

 Child Custody – Habeas Corpus - petition for habeas corpus was not maintainable as the minor child was not in illegal custody. The court emphasized that the dispute was more related to the adoption of the minor child rather than the legality of his current temporary custody. [Para 16-17]

 Adoption – Legal Procedures - credibility of documents submitted by both parties to support their claims regarding adoption is a matter for trial. Issues raised include the legality, context, and admissibility of affidavits and the adoption deed. [Para 17]

 Jurisdiction – Writ Petition - court role in such a case is limited to examining the affidavits and determining whether a trial is required. The court emphasized that issues of child custody and adoption fall under specific family laws. [Para 18-20]

 Decision - directed an interim arrangement for weekly visitation rights for the petitioners and ordered them to initiate appropriate proceedings for adjudication of their claim to the child’s custody within two months. The arrangement will continue until the rights of the parties are adjudicated by a competent court. [Para 26-27]

Additional Evidence – Judicial Discretion – Criminal Appeal – Held: The Appellate Court’s discretion under Section 391 Cr.P.C. to allow additional evidence is limited to cases where such evidence is essential for a just decision. The petitioner’s failure to produce evidence earlier due to negligence does not justify reopening the case to fill gaps. The dismissal of the application for additional evidence is upheld. [Paras 1-9]

Cheque Dishonor – Defence Evidence – Rejected Appeal – Held: Petitioner’s argument that the cheque did not bear his signature was deemed an afterthought. No evidence or response was provided during the trial to support this claim, and ample opportunity was given to present such a defence. The conviction and sentence for cheque dishonor are upheld. [Para 8]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The court finds no merit in the petition and affirms the lower court's decisions, maintaining the integrity of the initial trial and appeal proceedings. [Para 9]

Facts of the Case -complainant, an employee at HDFC Life Insurance, accused her superior of using derogatory language against her, specifically the term “Gandi Aurat” (dirty woman) - case was examined under Section 509 of the IPC, which deals with outraging the modesty of a woman. [Para 45]

Defining Modesty of Women - concept of “modesty of women,” describing it as a set of culturally and socially defined behaviors, manners, and dress codes intended to preserve a woman’s sense of privacy, decency, and dignity. The court notes that the concept varies across cultures and societies. [Para 34]

Culpable Intention and Reaction of the Woman - crucial factor in determining an outrage to modesty is the culpable intention of the accused. The reaction of the woman involved is relevant but not always conclusive. [Para 26-27]

Indecent Intention - essential aspect of outraging the modesty of a woman is the presence of indecent intention. The accused must have a deliberate and indecent intention in their actions or behavior. [Para 39-41]

Decision  - set aside the impugned order dated 05.07.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court, stating that the term “Gandi Aurat” used by the accused did not meet the criteria for outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 509 IPC. The court emphasized the need for a balanced judicial perspective and noted that the accused should have been more courteous. [Para 75-77]