Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of interference - High Court's power of judicial review under Article 227 - Limitations on the exercise of power - High Court cannot act as an appellate body or re-appreciate facts - Interference justified only when the lower court has exceeded jurisdiction or proceeded under erroneous presumption of jurisdiction - Interference warranted in cases of flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or when the order has resulted in grave injustice - Finding of facts by the lower court should be found to be perverse or patently erroneous and de hors the factual and legal position on record. (Para 10)

Scientific Investigation - Order of scientific investigation by the court - Permissible under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure - Purpose is to secure evidence in dispute - Court may issue a commission for scientific investigation if necessary or expedient in the interest of justice - Commission's report and evidence become admissible evidence - Commission may be appointed prior to trial if required - Court's power to elucidate disputed facts - No bar to appointing a Commission at any stage - Procedural law to advance the cause of justice. (Para 12)

Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 - Suit challenging the order of the District Judge - Suit's maintainability not the subject matter in the present petition - The Act's applicability not argued by parties in the Court below. (Para 9)

Scope of the Court below's order - Order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Limited scope of interference - Order inconsonance with provisions of law - Court cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decision - Interference warranted only for flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or grave injustice - No evidence of perversity or patent error in the lower court's findings. (Para 15)

Commission's proposed scientific investigation - Assurance by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) - Investigation to be non-destructive and without damage to existing structures - ASI's expertise in scientific investigation - No excavation to be conducted - Advanced technology to be used for survey, documentation, and non-destructive studies - ASI's undertaking to seek permission from the Court for any further investigation or excavation if required. (Para 20)

Order of the Court below - Order for scientific investigation upheld - Commission to undertake scientific survey and report on the disputed property - Commission's findings to be beneficial to all parties and aid the trial court in reaching a just decision - No grounds for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. (Para 21)

Arbitration and Additional Evidence - Petitioner filed a challenge against an order passed by the Arbitrator declining their application for additional evidence - Petitioner sought to present photographs, videos of locality, and sale-deeds to determine compensation - Court relied on Glenocore International case, holding that additional evidence may be permitted in appropriate cases - Impugned order set aside, and petitioner allowed to place additional evidence on record, subject to respondents' right to rebut - Petitioner directed to pay non-refundable costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- - Arbitrator not bound by all provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, governs the procedure for arbitration - Non-refundable cost to be deposited in "Chief Minister Punjab Relief Fund." (Para No. 1, 2, 10, 11, and 12)

Special Investigation Team (SIT) - Reports submitted by SIT - Serious allegations against petitioner - Drug trafficking and corruption - Misuse of authority - Money laundering - Acquisitions of properties - Need for custodial interrogation - High-ranking police officer - Potential for tampering with evidence - Application for anticipatory bail - Dismissal of petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail.

Petitioner, a police officer, facing serious allegations related to drug trafficking and corruption - SIT constituted to investigate the matter - Three reports submitted by SIT - Allegations of complicity with dismissed police official involved in drug smuggling and other criminal activities.

SIT's findings include evidence of petitioner misusing authority to extort money and benefit drug smugglers - Investigation into petitioner's property acquisitions and suspected money laundering.

State government takes action against petitioner based on SIT reports - Dismissal from service and recommendation for nomination as an accused in criminal cases.

Court rejects petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail - Emphasizes stringent scrutiny required under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) for granting bail in drug trafficking cases.

Concerns raised about potential tampering of evidence or intimidation of witnesses due to petitioner's high-ranking position in the police force.

Petitioner's lack of cooperation with the investigation noted - Filing of applications to avoid custody - Court dismisses petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail, allowing the state to take appropriate action based on SIT reports revealing alleged involvement in drug trafficking and corrupt activities. (Para 1-32)

Criminal Law - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Appellant convicted under Section 326 of IPC for causing grievous injury - Appeal filed against judgment of conviction and sentence - Sole testimony of credible injured witness relied upon - Conviction based on medical testimony and other relevant witnesses - Acquittal of co-accused not affecting credibility of injured witness - Maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" not applicable in India - Sentencing to be proportionate to the nature of the offense - Mitigating circumstance of prolonged suffering taken into account - Sentence reduced from 5 years to 3 years R.I. with fine - Fine amount to be paid to the injured as compensation. (Para 1 to 26)

Evidence - Testimony of injured witness - Special status and reliability - Injured witness' testimony not contradicted in cross-examination - Medical testimony supporting injured witness' account - Discrepancies and contradictions not eroding credibility - Law does not require plurality of witnesses for proof of fact - Conviction based on sole testimony of injured witness upheld - Other witnesses' hostility does not undermine injured witness' credibility. (Para 10, 12, 13, 16, 17)

Sentencing - Sentencing philosophy - Protection of society and deterring crime - Sentence to reflect atrocity and brutality of the offense - Opportunity for reform balanced with proportionality - Undue sympathy leading to inadequate sentence undermines justice - Mitigating circumstance of prolonged suffering taken into account - Sentence reduced from 5 years to 3 years R.I. with fine - Fine amount to be paid to the injured as compensation. (Para 22, 25, 26)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Suit for declaration of title and ownership of a property - Defendant contended that the suit was barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act and the Limitation Act - Plaintiff alleged that the cause of action arose in September 2016 when they became aware of the alleged gift deed executed by defendant no.2 in favor of defendant no.1 - Defendant sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Whether the suit is barred by the Benami Act and the Limitation Act - Whether the plaint can be rejected at this stage - Whether the defendant's contentions can be considered at this stage – Held - the determination of a benami transaction requires consideration of various tests and circumstances as laid down by the Supreme Court - The question of benami transaction can only be decided based on evidence to be led by the parties, and thus the suit cannot be dismissed at this stage on the ground of being barred by the Benami Act - The issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, and it would require evidence to be led by both parties - The mere existence of an adverse entry in the revenue records does not give rise to the cause of action as contemplated under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the cause of action accrues when the right asserted in the suit is infringed or threatened to be infringed - The court cannot consider the relative strength or weakness of the plaintiff's case on merit at this stage - The contents of the defendant's written statement and defense are irrelevant for the purpose of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - The plaintiff's pleadings alone are relevant for determining whether the plaint discloses a cause of action - The court cannot reject the plaint in part, it must be rejected as a whole - The issue of alleged admissions made by the plaintiff must be considered during the trial on the basis of evidence, a party is entitled to explain a previous admission - The effect of any suppression of material facts made by the plaintiff at the time of filing the plaint shall also be considered during the trial - The present application is found without any merits and is dismissed. (Para No. 58 to 76)

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ of Certiorarifiled Mandamus – Impugned order quashed – Appointing authorities rejected petitioner’s candidature for post of Grade II Police Constable on basis of alleged involvement in criminal case – Petitioner participated in protest organized by students against NEET examination – Criminal case filed under Sections 143, 188, 353, 295 and 297 of I.P.C – Crime quashed by High Court – Benefit extended to petitioner – Court held that petitioner’s right to protest for common cause is fundamental right – Relying on judgment in Sathish Chandra Yadav case, court noted employer’s right to consider antecedents despite truthful disclosure of concluded criminal case – Court observed that acquittal doesn’t automatically entitle candidate to appointment – Held: Impugned order quashed, petitioner entitled to appointment – Judgment relied upon by appointing authorities inapplicable – Fundamental right to protest does not imply criminal implication for job application – Order for appointment issued.

(Para 4, 5, 8, 9, 10)

Criminal Appeal – Murder and Kidnapping - Acquittal– Appeal against the conviction and sentence – Appellant convicted for offences under Sections 364 and 302 of the IPC – Issues raised regarding sufficiency of evidence, contradictory testimonies, and unreliable recovery – Consideration of medical reports, disclosure statement, and recovery memo – Extortionate messages exchanged from recovered mobile phone – Lack of evidence supporting a homicidal cause of death – Credibility of the recovery questioned – Appellant’s motive for extortion rather than murder – Messages’ dates not mentioned – Insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Appellant acquitted of charges. [Para 1]

Medical Evidence – Post-mortem and pathological reports – Absence of evidence suggesting homicide – Mild congestion in the lungs indicating a natural cause of death – No signs of strangulation or fatal assault – Lack of conclusive cause of death – Death likely due to lung infection – Natural cause of demise, not homicidal. [Para 16]

Disclosure Statement and Recovery – Contents of the appellant’s disclosure statement and recovery memo – Purported extortionate messages – Lack of mention of dates in messages – Unclear circumstances of mobile phone recovery – Mobile phone registered under another name – Absence of evidence linking the deceased to the mobile phone – Questions raised about the authenticity of the recovery – Lack of conclusive evidence – Doubts about the genuineness of recovery and messages. [Para 27]

Insufficient evidence to establish appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Lack of credible evidence suggesting a homicidal cause of death – Doubts raised about authenticity of recovery and messages – Appeal allowed, appellant acquitted of charges. [Para 28]

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Eviction of children from property – Authority of the Tribunal – Summary procedure – Competing claims – Right to maintenance and protection – The Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 may have the authority to order eviction as an incident of the enforcement of the right to maintenance and protection, but this remedy can only be granted after considering the competing claims in the dispute. (Para 22)

PWDV Act, 2005 – Application alongside Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Special legislation – Gender discrimination – Shared household – Equitable ease in obtaining rights in law – In deference to the dominant purpose of both the legislations (Senior Citizens Act and PWDV Act), it would be appropriate for a Tribunal under the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to grant remedies of maintenance that do not result in obviating competing remedies under other special statutes, such as the PWDV Act, 2005. Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 cannot be deployed to override and nullify other protections in law, particularly that of a woman’s right to a ‘shared household’ under section 17 of the PWDV Act, 2005. (Para 22)

Summary procedure under the Act – Protection of senior citizens – Avoiding harassment – Purpose and objects of the Senior Citizens Act – The Act is enacted for the benefit and protection of senior citizens from their children or grandchildren. The summary procedure should not be used to defeat legitimate claims of the parties and should protect the interests and welfare of senior citizens. (Para 24)

Quashing of ex parte order – Remand for fresh adjudication – Due process – Failure to consider vital aspects – The court quashed an ex parte order and remanded the matter back to the lower court for fresh adjudication, directing the parties to file their objections and written statements. The lower court was given a timeline to hear the parties and pass an order afresh. Failure to adhere to the timeline could lead to an ex parte proceeding. (Para 25)

Dissolution of marriage on ground of cruelty - 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Appellant-wife alleged cruelty by respondent-husband, including demands for dowry, physical and verbal abuse, neglect during pregnancy, and insistence to leave female child with appellant's parents - Respondent denied allegations and filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights - Family court dismissed appellant's petition without considering merits - High Court found appellant's assertions of cruelty uncontroverted and proved - High Court allowed appeal, set aside family court's judgment, and granted decree of divorce.