Criminal Law - Forgery and Signature Comparison - Petition under Section 482 CrPC - Allegations of forgery in obtaining an electricity connection - Signatures of respondent already compared by handwriting expert and FSL official - Application to summon additional documents for comparison dismissed by Trial Court - Court slow to base opinion on mere comparison of disputed documents - Petition dismissed to prevent unending trial and abuse of process. [Paras 1-10]

Judicial Discretion - Comparison of Signatures - Legal Principles - Signature comparison must be approached with caution - Court should avoid relying solely on comparison unless necessary - Existing comparisons by experts sufficient - Further comparison not essential for justice - Unnecessary comparisons lead to prolonged trials and potential abuse of process. [Paras 7-9]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition - High Court dismisses the petition seeking further comparison of signatures - Petitioner's numerous opportunities and existing expert comparisons sufficient - Further comparison deemed unnecessary - Petition dismissed and pending applications disposed of. [Paras 10-11]

Criminal Law - Quashing of Summoning Order - Petition under Sections 210 and 482 CrPC - Summoning order found to be flawed - Magistrate failed to apply mind to the facts of the case and the applicable law - Cancellation report not considered - Summoning order must reflect judicial application of mind - Impugned order set aside and case remitted to Magistrate for fresh consideration. [Paras 1-17]

Application of Judicial Mind - Legal Requirement - Analysis - Summoning of an accused in a criminal case requires careful scrutiny of evidence and application of judicial mind - Magistrate must examine allegations, evidence, and cancellation report if submitted - Failure to do so renders the order flawed - Cancellation report is essential under Section 210 CrPC - Summoning order must be reasoned and reflect consideration of all relevant materials. [Paras 6-13]

Decision - Setting Aside of Summoning Order - High Court sets aside the summoning order dated 16.07.2018 - Magistrate failed to consider the cancellation report and applied facts from an unrelated case - Case remitted for fresh consideration by the Magistrate - Petition partly allowed and pending applications disposed of. [Paras 14-17]

CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Prosecution's case based on eyewitness testimony - Doubts and discrepancies in the prosecution's case - Failure to establish the accused's presence at the scene - Weaknesses in the motive aspect - Contradictions in the timing of events - Non-existent or doubtful documentary evidence - Lack of medical examination to corroborate arrest and injuries - Inadequate reliance on recovery memos and site plan - Benefit of doubt to be given to the accused. (Para 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 20, 21)

EVIDENCE - Eyewitness testimony - Need for caution in assessing the testimony - Alleged eyewitnesses contradicting each other - Dropping of one eyewitness due to allegations of collusion - Failure to establish eyewitness presence at the scene - Discrepancies in the timing and sequence of events - Contradictions with other documentary evidence. (Para 10, 11, 15, 18)

PROCEDURE - Arrest and formalities - Non-existent arrest memo - Lack of signatures on recovery memos and disclosure statements - Inadequate documentation of the accused's presence and arrest - Failure to conduct timely medical examination - Doubts regarding the accused's apprehension and custody - Weakening the prosecution's case. (Para 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 19)

MOTIVE - Weaknesses in the alleged motive - Lack of evidence for alleged non-issuance of gas cylinders - Involvement of additional individuals based on subsequent disclosure statements - Contradictions and inconsistencies in the motive aspect - Casting doubt on the prosecution's case. (Para 10, 18)

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Recovery of weapon and forensic evidence - Lack of accused's signatures on recovery memos and sketches - Failure to lift fingerprints from the weapon - Doubts regarding the authenticity of forensic samples - Non-corroboration of the accused's involvement through circumstantial evidence - Weakening the prosecution's case. (Para 9, 11, 12, 13, 20)

Acquittal - Benefit of doubt - Doubts and discrepancies in the prosecution's case - Failure to establish accused's presence and arrest - Weak motive aspect - Contradictions in eyewitness testimony - Inadequate documentary evidence - Insufficient reliance on recovery memos and site plan - Judgment of conviction set aside - Accused to be set free unless required in other cases. (Para 21, 22)

Default Bail - Sect. 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sect. 18, 21C, 22C, 29, 36, and 36A(4) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985  - Filing of challan without Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report - Whether incomplete challan - Grant of default bail - Petitioner apprehended with commercial quantity of medical intoxicants - Challan filed without FSL report within statutory period - No application or report filed by Public Prosecutor within prescribed period - Report of FSL considered crucial and material document - Previous judgments held filing of challan without FSL report constitutes incomplete challan - Court sets aside trial court's order rejecting default bail - Petitioner ordered to be released on default bail upon furnishing requisite bail bonds. (Para No. 5 to 10)

Compensation amount - Deduction of medical reimbursement - Entitlement of claimant - Claimant receiving medical reimbursement under a separate Mediclaim policy from another insurance company - Appellant arguing for deduction of reimbursement amount from awarded compensation - Respondent contending that separate contractual liabilities exist - Contractual liability between claimant's father and other insurance company different from liability between driver/owner of offending vehicle and appellant/insurance company - Court holding that separate contractual liabilities cannot be equated - Reimbursement amount cannot be deducted from compensation amount. (Para 8)

Contractual liability - Distinction between separate policies - Claimant's father taking Health Insurance Policy for family - Premium paid for separate policy - Reimbursement received based on that policy - Different from contractual liability between appellant/insurance company and driver/owner of offending vehicle - Court emphasizing distinction between contractual obligations. (Para 8)

Appellant's liability - Indemnification of contractual liability - Appellant liable to indemnify contractual liability between them and owner of offending vehicle - Reimbursement amount received under separate contractual liability cannot be deducted from compensation amount. (Para 8)

Appeal - Dismissal - Claimant entitled to compensation - Appellant's request for deduction of reimbursement amount denied - Compensation awarded by Tribunal to stand. (Para 9)

Constitutional Law - Writ of Certiorari – Writ petition challenging the communication rejecting the petitioner's claim for Mewat Area Allowance – Petitioner's degree delay due to pending litigation – Supreme Court quashes communication, grants allowance – Delay beyond petitioner's control, allowance entitlement upheld. [Paras 1-9]

Employment Law - Entitlement to Allowance – Analysis – Held – Petitioner's post-graduate status before service joining uncontested – Degree delay due to external litigation – Entitlement to Mewat Area Allowance for entire tenure upheld. [Para 7]

Decision – Quashing of Impugned Communication – Court quashes the communication dated 02.11.2016 denying the petitioner the Mewat Area Allowance – Orders the respondents to grant the allowance for the entire tenure period within three months, with interest for delays. [Para 8]

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Petition under Section 438 CrPC - Allegations of cheating and misappropriation of funds - Petitioners accused of inducing the complainant to invest Rs. 65 lakhs in a fraudulent scheme involving the sale of onions - Petitioners submitted fictitious documents during the investigation - Apprehension of influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence - Custodial interrogation deemed necessary - Anticipatory bail denied. [Paras 1-12]

Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Judicial Discretion - Analysis - Judicial discretion to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised judiciously - Nature and gravity of the accusations, possibility of influencing witnesses, and need for custodial interrogation considered - Extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail granted only in exceptional cases - Petitioners' actions and submission of fictitious documents undermined trust in justice delivery system - Anticipatory bail rightly denied to prevent abuse of process. [Paras 7-10]

Decision - Dismissal of Anticipatory Bail Petition - High Court dismisses petition for anticipatory bail - Grave allegations of cheating and submission of fictitious documents - Custodial interrogation required for thorough investigation - Petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail - Petition dismissed and pending applications disposed of. [Paras 11-13]

Arms Act – Renewal and Cancellation of Licence – Quasi-Judicial Decisions – Writ petition challenging the orders canceling the petitioner’s arms licence and dismissing the appeal against the cancellation. The cancellation was based on the petitioner’s involvement in three FIRs, despite acquittal in all cases. Held, the cancellation order and the appellate order were non-speaking and lacked reasons, violating Section 17(5) of the Arms Act. Quasi-judicial authorities must support their conclusions with reasons. The impugned orders are set aside, and the matter is remitted for reconsideration in accordance with law, keeping in view the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act. [Paras 1-11]

Legal Requirement – Reasoned Orders – Judicial Accountability – The necessity for quasi-judicial authorities to provide reasons for their decisions is emphasized. Held, transparency and reasoned decisions are essential for judicial accountability and to maintain litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. The impugned orders did not record reasons bringing the case within the ambit of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, rendering them non-speaking and violative of Section 17(5). [Paras 10-11]

Decision:

Impugned orders set aside. The petition is disposed of by remitting the matter to respondent No. 2 to consider it afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No. 2 on April 25, 2023, at 11:00 AM. [Paras 11-12]

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Rule 4(1) of Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 – Petition for ex-gratia employment – Rule 4(1) restricts eligibility to cases where deceased employee was less than 52 years old at the time of death – Petitioner's father was 56 years old – Petitioner not entitled to compassionate appointment – Petition dismissed. [Para 4-6]

Eligibility for Compassionate Appointment – Analysis – Rule 4(1) specifies conditions for eligibility, including age of the deceased being less than 52 years – Petitioner's father exceeded the age limit – Rule intended to provide assistance only under specified conditions – Family already receiving financial assistance under Rule 6 – Petitioner's claim for employment on compassionate grounds untenable. [Para 4-5]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Compliance with Rule 4(1) precludes petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment – Financial assistance provided to the family deemed sufficient – Petition dismissed as lacking merit. [Para 5-6]