Criminal Writ Law - Mental Illness and Criminal Trial – Resumption of Trial under Section 331 & 332 Cr.P.C – Limited Enquiry Required – Violation of Natural Justice – Partially Allowed - After being declared unfit to stand trial under Section 329 Cr.P.C due to paranoid schizophrenia, the accused was later found fit for trial following treatment – Sessions Court proceeded with framing charges based on a medical report but without affording the accused or his representative an opportunity to cross-examine the psychiatrist or present contrary evidence – Held: Trial Court must conduct a limited enquiry, including permitting cross-examination of the psychiatrist and consideration of any additional evidence before deciding on resumption of trial – Matter remanded to Sessions Court for fresh decision [Paras 6–14, 19].

Criminal Procedure – Section 329 Cr.P.C – Requirement of Judicial Satisfaction – Not Met – Procedural Lapse Found – The Sessions Court acted solely on the medical report without conducting a proper enquiry into the accused’s capacity to make his defence – No finding recorded on capability – Failure to allow cross-examination of medical expert vitiated the process – Sessions Court directed to reconsider the matter in compliance with Sections 329, 331, and 332 Cr.P.C [Paras 7–14].

Mental Healthcare Act – Section 105 – Reference to Mental Health Review Board Not Mandatory – Cr.P.C Framework Prevails - The petitioner contended that failure to refer the issue to the Mental Health Review Board under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 vitiated proceedings – Held: Sections 328 and 329 Cr.P.C provide a more detailed and specialised framework for assessing the accused’s mental fitness to stand trial – Therefore, reference under Section 105 is not mandatory if Cr.P.C procedures are fully complied with [Paras 15–18].

Decision – Petition Partially Allowed – Sessions Court Directed to Permit Cross-examination of Psychiatrist and Allow Evidence by Petitioner – Sessions Court to Decide Afresh Whether Trial May Proceed – Procedural Safeguards Under Cr.P.C Must Be Observed [Para 19].

Bar Association Election – Interim Stay by Bar Council of India – Writ Petition for Recount of Votes – Petition Disposed – The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana had ordered a recount of votes in the election for President, District Bar Association, Chandigarh—Bar Council of India stayed the recount pending revision—Petitioner approached High Court seeking relief—High Court declined to enter merits and directed Bar Council of India to dispose of revision petition within two weeks, ensuring prompt transmission of records by all concerned—Petitioner assured presence during hearing before BCI [Paras 1–3].

Maintenance Claim – Second Marriage with Deceased Husband’s Brother – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Dismissal Set Aside – Revision Allowed – Trial court dismissed maintenance claim of widow and her two minor children on ground that her marriage with deceased husband’s brother (respondent) was not proved – Departmental inquiry in police service found respondent guilty of bigamy and recorded statements of respondent and his first wife admitting second marriage with revisionist – Village Pradhan’s certificate, Aadhaar and other records showed respondent as husband – Held: In light of SC precedents (Chanmuniya, Kamala, N. Usha Rani, Badshah), term “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to be given broad interpretation to prevent destitution – Strict proof of marriage not a precondition when parties cohabited as husband and wife – Finding of trial court based on hyper-technical approach unsustainable – Matter remitted for fresh decision treating revisionist as wife – Interim maintenance of ₹8,000/month awarded to revisionist [Paras 29-34].

Criminal Law - Defamation – Section 199 Cr.P.C. – No Bar to Magistrate's Direction under Section 155(2) – Petition Dismissed - Petitioner challenged the registration of NCR and filing of chargesheet under Section 500 IPC based on the ground that defamation offences under Chapter XXI IPC can only be prosecuted by private complaint under Section 199 Cr.P.C. – Held: Section 199 bars registration of FIR or investigation through Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., but does not bar investigation initiated under a Magistrate’s direction under Section 155(2) for non-cognizable offences – Hence, no illegality found in process [Paras 6-7.1].

Magisterial Powers – Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. – Magistrate Can Direct Investigation in Non-Cognizable Cases – Validity Upheld - The Court affirmed the Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. to direct registration and investigation in non-cognizable offences – Once legal opinion confirmed prima facie defamation, the Magistrate’s direction was valid – NCR and chargesheet lawfully filed [Paras 6, 6.1, 7].

Distinction Between Section 155(2) and 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Defamation Cases – FIR vs. NCR - The petitioner wrongly relied on precedents that bar FIR in defamation cases via Section 156(3) – Held: Present case arose from NCR registered under Section 155(2) and not FIR under Section 156(3); thus, the bar under Section 199 Cr.P.C. does not apply [Paras 7-7.1].

*Decision – Petition Dismissed – Magistrate's Order and NCR Upheld – No Illegality Found - The Court held that the direction issued by the Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. to register NCR and conduct investigation was lawful – Filing of chargesheet under Section 500 IPC was valid – Petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Para 8].

Civil Law - Secondary Evidence – Will – Sections 65 & 66 Evidence Act – Order Allowing Secondary Evidence Set Aside – Trial court permitted plaintiff to lead secondary evidence of registered Will without prior notice under Section 66 to Halqa Patwari alleged to have custody of document—Halqa Patwari earlier impleaded as defendant but later deleted from array of parties—Petitioner objected citing mandatory notice requirement—Respondent conceded to setting aside with liberty to move fresh application—High Court allowed revision, set aside impugned order, granted liberty to file fresh application for proving Will in accordance with law [Paras 2–4].

Civil Law - Adverse Possession – Title Denial via Unregistered Sale Deed – No Adverse Possession Established – The defendant claimed ownership by an unregistered sale deed dated 15/11/1973 and sought to establish adverse possession from that date – Held: An unregistered sale deed for consideration above Rs.100 does not confer ownership, and possession under such transaction is permissive, not hostile – Defendant failed to plead or prove open and hostile possession to the knowledge of true owner – Adverse possession cannot be claimed while simultaneously denying true owner’s title – Judgment and decree of courts below set aside [Paras 3, 9, 15-17].

Suit for Possession – No Declaration of Title Required – Title Not Disputed – Plaintiff’s Title Admitted by Defendant – Defendant’s defence based on purchase from plaintiff through unregistered sale deed constitutes admission of plaintiff’s ownership – Held: In such cases, even without a declaration of title, a suit for possession is maintainable [Para 18].

Eviction and Injunction – Plaintiff Entitled to Relief – Defendant Directed to Vacate – Appeal Allowed – Defendant permanently restrained from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff – Trial Court and Appellate Court judgments reversed – Suit decreed [Paras 20-22].

Tenancy Law - Rent Control Act – Executability of Eviction Decree – Multinational Company Sub-lessee – Jurisdiction Upheld – The petitioner, a multinational company, challenged the execution of eviction decrees on the ground that premises were exempt under Section 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – Held: The exemption is qua the premises let or sub-let lawfully – In the absence of lawful subletting, and where tenancy was terminated due to non-user and subletting by original tenant, the Small Causes Court retained jurisdiction – Executing Court rightly refused to declare decree null and void [Paras 6.4, 6.8, 31-35, 38-39].

Execution – Scope of Challenge – Nullity of Decree – Limited Grounds – The Court reiterated that executing courts can declare a decree null and void only when there is inherent lack of jurisdiction – Held: In this case, decree was passed by a court having jurisdiction over landlord-tenant matters – Petitioner is barred from changing stance post-decree execution proceedings – No inherent lack of jurisdiction found [Paras 16-18, 39-40].

Tenant and Sub-tenant – Contradictory Stand – Estoppel – Petitioner Denied Protection Under Rent Act, Then Claimed Exemption – Not Permissible – Before the Trial Court, the petitioner had denied being in exclusive possession and claimed protection under the Rent Act – Later, in execution proceedings, sought to argue that the Act does not apply – Held: Petitioner estopped from raising contrary plea at belated stage – Such volte-face undermines judicial process [Paras 11, 33-34].

Interpretation – Exemption Under Section 3(1)(b) – Applies to Lawfully Let or Sub-let Premises – Cannot Be Used to Circumvent Rent Act – Held: Section 3(1)(b) applies only to premises let or sub-let lawfully – Allowing unlawful subletting to invoke exemption would render protections of the Rent Act meaningless – Such interpretation rejected [Paras 36-38].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Executing Court Order Sustained – Writ Petitions dismissed – No interference warranted with orders upholding decree and possession warrants – Rule discharged with no order as to costs [Paras 41-42].

NDPS Bail – Sections 21, 25, 29 of the NDPS - Recovery of Intermediate Quantity of Heroine – Section 37 Not Attracted – Bail Granted – Petitioner was arrested for alleged possession of 100 grams of heroin, an intermediate quantity – Co-accused implicated her through disclosure statement – Held: Section 37 NDPS not applicable to intermediate quantity – Bail granted considering long custody, parity with co-accused, and absence of need for further investigation [Paras 2, 14, 24-26].

Disclosure Statement – Limited Evidentiary Value – Arrest Based on Co-accused’s Statement – The applicant’s arrest was based on a disclosure statement of co-accused without independent corroboration – Held: Sole reliance on disclosure without further investigation cannot justify prolonged incarceration – Custodial interrogation no longer required [Paras 13-14, 24-25].

Procedural Safeguards – Violation of Sections 42, 50 and 57 NDPS Act Alleged – Petitioner alleged multiple procedural lapses, including improper communication of grounds of arrest and non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS – Held: These contentions merit consideration at trial – Not decisive for rejecting bail at this stage [Paras 4-10].

Parity and Discrimination – Co-accused Already Released – Petitioner Entitled to Bail – Co-accused with similar or lesser recovery granted bail – Held: Applicant cannot be treated differently in absence of compelling distinguishing factors – Parity principle applicable [Para 24].

Prolonged Custody – No Need for Further Investigation – Chargesheet Filed – Bail Justified – Petitioner in custody since 26.04.2024 – No fresh recovery required and investigation substantially completed – Held: Further incarceration unnecessary and would amount to pre-trial punishment [Paras 2, 11, 24-26].

Final Order – Bail Granted – Subject to Conditions – Court granted bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 35,000/- with surety and imposed conditions including attendance in Court, no tampering with evidence, and residence verification [Para 26].

Civil Writ - Panchayat Election – Sole Nomination – Election Process Frustrated – Petition Dismissed – Election to President of Nalluru Gram Panchayat was scheduled for 21.07.2025—Only petitioner submitted nomination, but Prescribed Election Officer failed to attend and no scrutiny or further process occurred—Some members could not submit nominations due to officer’s absence—State issued fresh calendar for 06.08.2025—High Court held that election process never commenced and stood frustrated due to Prescribed Officer’s conduct; declaration of petitioner as elected untenable; fresh poll justified [Paras 1-6].

Nomination Procedure – Mandatory Compliance – Nomination must be filed with Prescribed Election Officer—Submission to unauthorised officer invalid; absence of scrutiny and withdrawal stages vitiated process [Paras 2, 5].

Right to Contest – Fresh Election – Court clarified that all eligible candidates, including petitioner, may file nominations for rescheduled poll [Para 7].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed; State’s decision to hold fresh election upheld [Paras 6-7].