Specific performance of agreement to sell - Defendants claimed agreement to sell was forged - Handwriting and fingerprint expert report not binding on court - Direct evidence of marginal witness and scribe proved execution of agreement - Discrepancy in payment details attributed to passage of time and human memory - Written contract acknowledged receipt of amount - Agreement executed on non-judicial stamp paper - Concurrent findings of courts below upheld - No grounds to interfere - Appeal dismissed. (Para 1-9)

Criminal Procedure – Quashing - Offense under Section 188 of the IPC – Registration of FIR and filing of final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. – Necessity of written complaint from the concerned public servant – Mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. – Non-compliance vitiating prosecution and rendering trial void ab initio – Proceedings initiated solely on the basis of FIR without written complaint impermissible.

Epidemic Diseases Act and Disaster Management Act – Covid-19 pandemic – Extraordinary situation – Prohibition on gatherings without permission – Compliance with government instructions required – Activities subject to permission from concerned District Magistrate and adherence to guidelines.

Precedents – C. Muniappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Jiwan Kumar vs. State of Punjab, and Jagdish vs. State of Haryana – Support for mandatory nature of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. – Requirement of written complaint by concerned public servant – Non-compliance vitiating prosecution and rendering trial void ab initio.

Quashing of FIR and final report – Registration of FIR and subsequent proceedings not permitted by law – FIR based solely on information without written complaint from concerned public servant – Quashing ordered.

Termination of services – Writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India – Petitioner sought quashing of order dismissing his appeal against termination of service and reinstatement with continuity of service and payment of arrears of pay and other benefits – Petitioner appointed as Senior Lecturer-Mass Communications at Ansal Institute of Technology – Promoted to Assistant Professor and Assistant Dean (Marketing) – Services terminated on grounds of poor student intake for subject taught – Petitioner claimed termination illegal, alleging post advertised after his termination and termination violated Service Rules and Section 22 of Act of 1988 – Respondents argued termination justified due to post abolition and relied on appointment letter and Service Rules – Court examined arguments, laws, and precedents and held termination illegal. (Para 6-10)

Termination of services without notice or show cause – Violation of Service Rules and Section 22 of Act of 1988 – Petitioner’s services terminated with one month’s notice, contrary to Service Rules requiring three months’ notice or salary in lieu thereof – Section 22 of Act of 1988 provided for show cause notice before termination – Court found termination not in accordance with Service Rules and Section 22, as petitioner was confirmed in service and entitled to protection under Section 22. (Para 12)

Principle of res judicata – Writ petition not barred – Petitioner previously filed civil suit on same matter, which was withdrawn with liberty to approach Educational Tribunal – Principle of res judicata did not apply as civil suit was not decided on any issue – Court held writ petition maintainable. (Para 13)

Reinstatement and arrears of salary – Court directed management of Ansal University to reinstate petitioner with all notional benefits – Allowed respondents to seek information on petitioner’s employment status during proceedings to determine entitlement of arrears of salary – Instructed respondents to complete process regarding arrears of salary expeditiously, preferably within three months. (Para 14)

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Quashing of FIR - Principles governing quashing of FIRs - Exercise of power under Section 482 to prevent abuse of court's process or to secure ends of justice - Lack of precise and inflexible guidelines for exercise of power - Court not finding sufficient grounds to quash FIR at present stage - Case pending before trial court - Victim supporting prosecution's case in statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. - Allegation of forcible physical relations made by victim - Validity of marriage and applicability of POCSO Act to be decided during trial proceedings - Plea for quashing of FIR dismissed. (Para 8-9)

Muslim personal laws - Validity of marriage - Age of victim - Marriage performed under Muslim personal laws - Victim's age and validity of marriage to be considered during trial proceedings - Applicability of POCSO Act also to be decided during trial. (Para 5, 9)

Consent of minor - Minor's consent holding no legal weight in eyes of law - Allegation of forcible physical relations made by victim - Victim's consent not mitigating factor - Trial proceedings to determine veracity of allegations. (Para 7)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 295-A - Quashing of FIR and proceedings - FIR registered against petitioners for allegedly portraying wrong image of Bhagwan Valmiki in the television serial "Ram Siya Ke Luv Kush" - Formation of committee to address grievances and suggest corrective measures - Undertaking by petitioners to comply with guidelines - Resolution reached between stakeholders - Complainant has no objection to quashing of FIR - High Court quashes FIR and all related proceedings. (Para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. – Revision petition challenging grant of maintenance – Dispute already settled by Family Court’s amendment to divorce decree – Finding of voluntary surrender of right to future maintenance – Impugned order erroneously disregarded the finding of the Family Court – Revision allowed. [Para 17]

2. Value of lump-sum payment towards maintenance – Failure to appreciate principles of economics regarding inflation and devaluation of money – Impugned order failed to consider the impact of time on the value of the payment made in 2005. [Para 8]

3. Settlement of future maintenance through divorce decree – Wife voluntarily relinquished her right to future maintenance – Impugned order incorrectly revived the right to future maintenance, disregarding the prior settlement. [Para 11]

4. Validity of contract restricting the right to maintenance – Public policy considerations under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. – No finding of undue influence or coercion affecting the agreement reached by the parties in the divorce proceedings. [Para 9]

5. Need for streamlining multiple maintenance orders – Overlapping jurisdiction and conflicting orders – Simultaneous operation of different enactments – Husband should not be obligated to comply with successive maintenance orders passed under different laws. [Para 15]

6. Importance of considering the findings and decisions of lower courts – Impugned order failed to consider the Family Court’s finding and amendment to the divorce decree, which had settled the issue of future maintenance. [Para 12]

Election Law - Interference by Courts in Election Matters – The petitioner filed for mandamus to direct cancellation of nomination paper of Respondent No.5 for the post of Panch, alleging fraudulent voter registration – Held, once election process starts, courts should not interfere as per Article 243-O of the Constitution and Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayat Raj Act – Petition dismissed, but petitioner can seek alternative remedy post-election declaration. [Paras 1-17]

Eligibility and Nomination Process – Analysis – Court reviews Sections 162, 163, 167, 171, 173, and 176 of the Haryana Panchayat Raj Act, noting the comprehensive legal framework for voter list preparation and candidate eligibility – False declarations in voter lists are punishable – Nomination challenges should be addressed through election petitions post-election process. [Paras 6-12]

Decision – Non-interference in Ongoing Election Process – Reiterated by Supreme Court precedents, the judiciary’s non-interference during election processes ensures smooth electoral operations – Election disputes must be raised through election petitions as provided under the relevant statutes. [Paras 13-16]

Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of plaint - Application filed by defendant-petitioners seeking rejection of plaint - Suit for permanent injunction - Plaintiffs alleging possession and seeking injunction against dispossession - Defendant-petitioners claiming possession and contending suit not maintainable - Reliance on unregistered agreement to sell - Availability of alternative remedy - Impugned order dismissing application - Challenge thereto - Whether grounds exist for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Held, only averments of plaint to be considered - Plaintiffs specifically averring possession and seeking injunction - Defendant-petitioners' argument on possession not to be considered at this stage - Alternative remedy and reliance on unregistered agreement matters of evidence - No grounds made out for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Revision petition devoid of merits - Revision petition dismissed. (Para No. 5-6)

Criminal Writ Petition – Quashment of interception orders under the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 – Violation of right to privacy – Compliance with Article 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution – Lack of sufficient reasoning and procedural safeguards. (Para 1)

Provisions of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act – Requirement for occurrences of public emergency or interest of public safety – Impugned orders lacked disclosure of material justifying public safety – Failure to record reasons in writing for interception. (Para 4)

Precedents – Illegal tapping of phone conversations violates right to privacy – Upheld by a 9 Judges Constitution Bench – Importance of procedural fairness and protection of privacy rights reaffirmed in previous cases. (Para 9)

Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Amendment Rules, 2007 – Mandate for issuance of interception orders by competent authorities – Orders must contain reasons – Requirement to consider other means of acquiring information – Failure to adhere to procedural safeguards. (Para 16)

Non-compliance with statutory provisions – Impugned orders passed by an incompetent authority – Failure to send orders to the Review Committee – Impugned orders suffered from manifest arbitrariness. (Para 17)

Quashing of all three interception orders – Direction to destroy intercepted messages and their copies – Prohibition of use of intercepted messages in pending criminal proceedings. (Para 19)

Petitioner allowed to seek further legal remedies for other reliefs sought in the writ petition – No costs imposed on either party. (Para 20)