Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint and Summoning Order – Petition under Section 482 CrPC – Allegations of substandard fertilizer against dealer and others – Samples taken from sealed and properly stored fertilizer bags – Held dealer not liable for substandard fertilizer as responsibility lies with manufacturer – Complaint and summoning order quashed. [Paras 1-10]

Liability of Dealer vs. Manufacturer in Fertilizer Quality Control – Analysis – Held – Dealer and associated petitioners not responsible for substandard fertilizer contained in sealed bags – Liability, if any, attributed solely to manufacturer – Precedents from Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirming dealer’s non-liability in similar circumstances. [Para 9]

Decision – Quashing of Complaint and Summoning Order – Court quashes Complaint Case No. 14 dated 22.03.2018 and summoning order dated 07.04.2018, along with all consequential proceedings against the petitioners, on grounds that responsibility for substandard fertilizer lies with the manufacturer, not the dealer or associated parties. [Para 10]

Civil Procedure – Appeal and Delay Condonation – Article 227 – Order 41 Rule 3A CPC – Non-joinder of Necessary Party - Appeal Process – Challenge against the appellate court's order overruling objections related to the maintainability of an appeal filed without a condonation of delay application – High Court upheld appellate court's decision to grant leave for appeal despite procedural objections raised by the petitioner – Court found substantial issues regarding whether the trial court's order was justifiable based on the material presented and existing legal precedents [Paras 1-6, 24-45].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Party – Petitioner's failure to include a necessary party in the initial suit resulted in procedural and substantive complications – The petitioner filed a caveat against the excluded party, contradicting his own argument of non-necessity – Court emphasized the importance of including all affected parties to avoid procedural defects and ensure just adjudication [Paras 3-5, 25-28, 45].

Legal Analysis – Application of Order 41 Rule 3-A CPC - Condonation of Delay – Court ruled that in the given circumstances, the requirement for a delay condonation application was not applicable as the respondent learned of the trial court’s order through a caveat and acted promptly – Deficiency in filing delay condonation application can be a curable defect, which was not relevant in this case as the appeal was filed within the limitation period from the date of knowledge [Paras 18-20, 38-43].

Suppression of Material Facts – High Court found that the petitioner suppressed material facts and misled the trial court by excluding a necessary party, thereby obtaining an interim order through misrepresentation – Such conduct was deemed as playing fraud with the court, warranting dismissal of the petition and imposition of costs [Paras 29-32, 50-52].

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – The writ petition was dismissed in limine for lacking merit and being based on suppressed facts and misrepresentation – Costs imposed on the petitioner for attempting to mislead the court and abusing the judicial process – Emphasized the need for clean hands and full disclosure in seeking equitable reliefs [Paras 52-53].

Constitutional Law – Right to Life and Liberty – Live-in Relationship – Protection from Threats – Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Petitioners, a couple in a live-in relationship, sought protection from threats by relatives. Citing previous judgments, the court emphasized the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21, which includes the right to live with a person of one’s choice. The court directed the appropriate authorities to assess the threat perception and take necessary action to protect the petitioners’ life and liberty, irrespective of the legal status of their relationship. – Directions issued for protection of petitioners’ life and liberty. [Paras 1-16]

Right to Life and Liberty – Legal Status of Relationship Irrelevant for Protection – Analysis – The court held that protection under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount and not contingent upon the legality of the relationship. Previous judgments of the High Court and Division Bench were cited to support the principle that every individual, regardless of the societal acceptance of their relationship, is entitled to protection of their life and liberty. [Paras 10-14]

Decision – Protection Directed – Without Commenting on Relationship Legality – The High Court disposed of the petition with directions to the relevant authorities to consider the petitioners’ representation and take appropriate action to ensure their protection. The court clarified that this order does not preclude the State or any other aggrieved party from initiating legal proceedings against the petitioners if justified by their actions. [Paras 15-17]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR registered under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC – Allegations of massive fraud and forgery in issuing challan receipts for vehicle release – Court found prima facie evidence against petitioner – Held, ongoing investigation justified, no grounds for quashing FIR [Paras 1-20].

Departmental Inquiry vs. Criminal Proceedings – Petitioner exonerated in departmental inquiry – Court held exoneration in departmental inquiry does not preclude criminal proceedings – Different standards of proof applicable in disciplinary and criminal matters [Paras 10-12].

Investigation – Interim Measures – Petitioner absconding and not cooperating with investigation – Court directed I.G. Police to oversee thorough and unbiased investigation – Emphasized need for scientific and forensic assistance in evidence collection [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held, serious allegations require comprehensive investigation – No stay on arrest – I.G. Police to ensure effective investigation and compliance [Paras 20-22].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act – The petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court and the conviction was upheld by the Appellate Court – Petitioner issued cheques which were dishonored due to insufficient funds – Trial Court relied on the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act – Petitioner argued that cheques were issued as security for other transactions, not for clearing a debt [Paras 1-16].

Burden of Proof – Section 139 of NI Act – The Court reiterated that the accused must rebut the presumption of liability by leading cogent evidence – In this case, the petitioner successfully rebutted the presumption by establishing that cheques were issued as security, not for payment of a debt – Prosecution failed to produce invoices or any documentary evidence to prove the transaction [Paras 12-15].

Evaluation of Evidence – Invoices and Supply of Goods – The complainant failed to produce any invoices or documentation to substantiate the supply of goods claimed – Cross-examination of the complainant revealed admissions that contradicted the prosecution’s case – No sufficient evidence to establish that the accused owed the amount stated in the cheques [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the Trial Court and its confirmation by the Appellate Court set aside – Petitioner acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act – Bail bonds cancelled [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Acquittal of Accused – Appeal against acquittal in a case of alleged murder of Bipin Kumar – Trial Court acquitted the accused based on lack of evidence – High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no compelling reason to interfere with the Trial Court's judgment [Paras 61-63].

Evidence – Sufficiency of Proof – Prosecution failed to establish motive and connection between the accused and the crime – Lack of credible evidence and witnesses – Circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain leading to the accused [Paras 59-61].

Victim Compensation – Despite the acquittal, the informant, being the victim’s legal heir, is entitled to compensation under Section 357A Cr.PC from Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014 – State directed to compensate the victim [Para 62-63].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – State to provide compensation to the victim’s legal heir.
 

Criminal Procedure - Pardon and Custody - Petitioner, involved in conspiracy and unlawful activities, granted pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. as an approver but remained in custody - Analysis of judicial discretion for release under inherent powers (Section 482 Cr.P.C.) despite statutory provisions mandating custody till trial completion - Held, the court, recognizing the medical hardships and prosecution's no objection, exercised its discretion favorably for petitioner's release on personal bond. [Paras 5-31]

Medical Condition Consideration - Petitioner suffers from severe post-polio residual paralysis - Court considered "humane and understanding approach" necessary, affecting decision to grant relief from custody under judicial discretion principles. [Para 25-27]

Legal Principles - Discussion on inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to override Section 306(4)(b) Cr.P.C.'s custody requirement - Cited precedents and judicial reasoning for possible bail or release of approvers under High Court's inherent jurisdiction, aligning with the constitutional right under Article 21. [Paras 12-18]

Decision - Release on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with strict conditions related to compliance with pardon terms and mandatory court appearances, highlighting the balance between legal mandates and individual rights. [Paras 31-32]

Criminal Law - Bail Application – Denial by Trial Court under UAPA for alleged ISIS involvement – Charges under IPC and UAPA, including Sections 38 and 39 – High Court grants bail, citing insufficient evidence of intent to further terrorist activities, as required under specific UAPA sections – Prosecution fails to establish required intention beyond mere possession and access to radical content – Digital evidence indicates radical views but no active participation or preparation for terrorism – Absence of direct actions supporting ISIS negates charges under Sections 38 and 39 of UAPA. [Paras 1-98]

Incriminating Material and Association with Terrorist Organization – Analysis – Held – Examines the allegations and digital evidence against the appellant, including possession of radical content and discussions about potential migration ('Hijrah') to ISIS-controlled territories. The Court finds that mere possession of such material, without evidence of dissemination or direct involvement in terrorist activities, does not suffice to establish active membership or support under UAPA Sections 38 and 39. Notes lack of direct participation or overt acts in furtherance of terrorist activities by the appellant. [Paras 54-74]

Decision – Grant of Bail to Appellant – Despite heavy charges under UAPA, the Court concludes that the strict conditions of UAPA for denying bail are not met as the accusations against the appellant lack substantial evidence of his active involvement or intention to further terrorist activities. The appellant is granted bail on stringent terms set by the trial court, with a caution that breach of conditions could lead to revocation of bail. [Paras 96-98]

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Prima Facie Evidence and Presumption of Innocence – Petitioners sought bail in a case involving allegations of rape and gang rape added post FIR registration. The High Court granted bail considering the inconsistencies between the initial complaint and subsequent statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the lack of prima facie evidence to support the grave allegations made by the complainant [Paras 1-26].

Evaluation of Evidence – FIR and Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statement – Court observed that the complainant’s FIR did not mention rape or gang rape allegations, which appeared for the first time in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized the distinction between elaboration and improvisation of facts, ruling that the latter, which introduced new allegations without previous mention, weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 20-23].

Legal Principles for Grant of Bail – Reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially under the presumption of innocence principle enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court referenced several Supreme Court judgments outlining the discretionary power in granting bail, focusing on parameters like nature and gravity of accusation, reasonable grounds for believing the accused’s guilt, and conduct of the accused during investigation [Paras 14-18].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioners granted bail on conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and restriction on leaving the Union Territory of J&K without prior permission. The order highlighted the lack of substantive evidence and procedural adherence, emphasizing the need for the prosecution to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt [Para 24].