Criminal Complaint – Sections 156(3) and 202 Cr.P.C – Magistrate’s Discretion – Allegations of assault/intimidation arising from civil road dispute – Magistrate opted to hold enquiry under Section 202 instead of police investigation under Section 156(3) – Held: Magistrate’s discretion proper; no inevitable requirement for police investigation; Article 227 jurisdiction limited to cases of manifest miscarriage of justice – Petition dismissed [Paras 2-9, 12].

Civil Dispute – Criminal Allegations – Complaint disclosed four separate incidents (2022–2023) of assault, intimidation, and outraging of modesty – Court observed root cause was civil dispute over right of way; multiplicity of alleged crimes justified Magistrate’s cautious approach to proceed with enquiry rather than police referral [Paras 2-7].

Recovery/Investigation – Alleged use of rod and dagger years earlier – Court held police recovery/custodial interrogation not feasible or necessary; no ground to mandate investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. [Para 9].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope – Citing Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2009) and Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala (2019), Court reiterated Article 227 power is supervisory, not appellate; interference only in cases of patent illegality or manifest injustice – Not meant to substitute Magistrate’s discretion [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Magistrate’s decision to proceed under Section 202 Cr.P.C. upheld; no exceptional ground for interference under Article 227 – Petition dismissed with appreciation for assistance of Amicus Curiae [Para 12].

Civil Revision – Withdrawal of Earlier Suit – Order 23 Rule 1 CPC – Permission to file fresh suit implied – Plaintiff withdrew earlier Title Suit No.160/1979 with prayer for liberty to file fresh suit – Trial Court allowed withdrawal but did not expressly mention liberty – Held: Order must be construed as granting composite prayer – Fresh suit not barred – Trial Court erred in holding otherwise – Civil revision allowed, impugned order set aside, suit restored for decision on merits [Paras 5–7, 9–10].

Interpretation – Withdrawal with Liberty – Where order allows withdrawal without specifically refusing liberty sought, it is deemed that liberty was granted – Court cannot split relief – Composite prayer under Order 23 Rule 1 must be allowed or rejected in toto – Supported by precedents Sukumar Banerjee v. Dilip Kumar Sarkar, AIR 1982 Cal 17, and Khudi Rai v. Lalo Rai, AIR 1926 Pat 259 [Paras 5–9].

Decision – Civil Revision No.54/2013 allowed – Order dated 22.12.2012 of Sub-Judge VIII, Siwan set aside – Title Suit No. 340/1985 to be decided on merits as per law [Para 10].

Judicial Service Recruitment – Clause 8.4 prescribing minimum 40% in each paper and 50% aggregate upheld – Administrative instructions can supplement Rules when silent – Petition dismissed [Paras 12-20].

Scope of Rules – Rules of 2007 for Punjab & Haryana provide for written test (750 marks) and viva voce (250 marks) but are silent on qualifying marks – Notifications added Clause 8.4 requiring 40% in each paper and 50% aggregate – Held: not inconsistent but supplemental to statutory scheme [Paras 10-12].

Power of High Court – Following K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 395 – High Court can prescribe benchmarks in absence of express prohibition – Ensures selection of best available talent for judiciary [Paras 13, 18].

Supreme Court Precedent – Applied Dr. Kavita Kamboj v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, (2024) 7 SCC 103 – When Rules silent, administrative instructions permissible to fill gaps – Minimum marks criteria legally sustainable [Paras 14, 17-18].

Estoppel – Petitioner had earlier challenged identical notifications in W.P. (C) 501/2024 before Supreme Court—dismissed on 18.10.2024 without liberty—thus barred from reagitating same cause [Paras 15-16].

Decision – No arbitrariness in Clause 8.4—petition dismissed—miscellaneous applications also disposed [Paras 19-21].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Inordinate Delay – Appeal filed by Gram Panchayat after six years and fourteen days of trial court decree – Petitioner failed to establish any sufficient cause for such delay – Appellate court rightly rejected delay application – Held: Petitioner was aware of the decree and participated in trial – Delay not caused by any unavoidable circumstance but due to administrative inaction and negligence – False assertions made in the affidavit about the decree being ex parte and unknown to the Panchayat – Such falsehoods strongly deprecated by the Court [Paras 3.3, 5.1–5.5, 9.1].

Public Body – Due Diligence – Change in Panchayat body cited as reason for delay – No documentary proof offered as to when new body took over or what steps were taken during six-year period – Court held that being a public authority does not entitle petitioner to automatic leniency under Limitation Act – Law equally applies to State and its instrumentalities unless justified by public interest or exceptional facts [Paras 5.6, 5.8, 6.0–6.5].

Limitation Law – Judicial Discretion – Exercise of discretion to condone delay must be based on bona fide explanation – Condonation denied where delay is unexplained, accompanied by false pleadings, or indicative of lack of diligence – Imposing conditions cannot validate a meritless condonation plea – Court emphasized that settled legal rights cannot be unsettled merely due to inaction or internal disorganization of a litigant body [Paras 6.1–6.5, 9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Delay of more than six years in filing appeal not condoned – No sufficient cause shown – False statements made in delay affidavit deprecated – Writ petition rejected with no order as to costs.

Divorce Petition – Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Amendment sought after framing of issues – Not barred if facts arose subsequently or due diligence shown – No new cause of action; only elaboration of cruelty ground – Amendment rightly allowed – Petition dismissed [Paras 12-19].

Amendment of Pleadings – Trial commencement – Mere framing of issues not commencement of trial – Trial begins when evidence starts – Amendment permissible if sought before evidence or if new facts arise subsequently – SC precedents applied [Paras 12-13].

Hindu Marriage Act – Multiple grounds of divorce – No bar to include additional grounds by amendment – Filing successive petitions permissible; hence, taking additional ground in same petition avoids multiplicity – Res judicata does not apply between separate grounds under s.13 HMA [Para 17].

Cruelty – Allegations of immoral conduct with colleague – Amendment introducing subsequent incidents of misconduct and threats – Considered elaboration of cruelty already pleaded, not new cause of action – Properly allowed [Paras 15, 18].

Decision – Family Court order allowing amendment upheld – Petition dismissed; Family Court directed to conclude divorce proceedings expeditiously as per s.21-B HMA [Paras 19-20].

NDPS Bail – Section 21(c), NDPS Act – Commercial quantity heroin (500 gms) – Bail granted despite Section 37 bar due to prolonged custody of 1 year 5 months, absence of antecedents, and SC precedents – Conditional liberty with strict safeguards [Paras 11-16, 17, 26].

Commercial Quantity & Rigors of Section 37 – Recovery of 500 grams heroin constituted commercial quantity—ordinarily attracting embargo of Section 37 NDPS Act—Court required to be satisfied on twin conditions [Paras 8-10].

Prolonged Custody & Article 21 – Custody of 1 year 5 months considered excessive pre-trial incarceration—Article 21 right to liberty invoked—Supreme Court precedents in Rabi Prakash, Sabat Mehtab Khan, and Ramlal applied—Held: liberty must override statutory embargo when custody is unduly prolonged [Paras 11-15].

Conditions Imposed – Bail subject to stringent terms: bond or FD of ₹25,000; surrender of firearms & arms license; compliance with statutory bond obligations; no tampering with evidence; cancellation clause if repeat NDPS or serious offences committed—aimed at balancing liberty with societal interest [Paras 17-23, 26].

Purpose of Conditions – Conditions intended to reform and deter repetition of drug offences—linked to Supreme Court principle in Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT Delhi (2022) on proportional bail conditions [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Petition allowed—petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail in FIR No.29/2024, P.S. Sadar Gurdaspur, subject to conditions—pending applications disposed [Paras 27-29].

Service Law - Probationary Service – Article 311(2) – Non-stigmatic termination during probation upheld – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 25-34].

Issues for Determination – Validity of initiation of disciplinary proceedings by competent authority – Compliance with principles of natural justice – Whether termination order is stigmatic/punitive attracting Article 311(2) – Court framed three core questions and proceeded on settled law governing probationers [Para 21].

Probationer’s Status & Article 311 – Distinction between confirmed employee and probationer – Judicial review narrower for probationers – Article 311 protections invoked only if termination is punitive/stigmatic – Employer may assess suitability during probation and terminate without full-scale inquiry if order is innocuous – Followed Rajasthan High Court v Ved Priya; T.C.M. Pillai; Jaswant Singh – Applied “foundation vs motive” test [Paras 25-29].

Nature of Termination Order – Language of termination letter recorded lack of “absolute integrity and devotion to duty” as employer’s dissatisfaction during probation – No specific imputation/findings of misconduct forming the foundation – Held: not stigmatic; merely articulates what is implicit in probationary termination – Pavanendra Narayan Verma principle reiterated [Paras 31-32].

Natural Justice & Enquiry Fairness – Petitioner was served charge-sheet, replied, and initially participated – No material to substantiate inability to attend for want of TA/DA – Two committees (Internal Complaint & Internal Finance) conducted fact-finding; Enquiry Officer’s report placed before authority – For probationary assessment, “less formal” process with adequate opportunity suffices – No mala fides or serious procedural breach found [Paras 15-16, 22, 32].

Competency of Authorities – Petitioner’s challenge to AGM(HR)/CGM(Tech) competence under Schedule of Delegation rejected in effect—respondents showed delegation permitting AGM-level signatures for specified grades; in any event, outcome turned on non-stigmatic probationary termination rather than imposition of a major penalty [Paras 17-18, 23, 32].

Relief & Alternate Remedy – Plea for quashing charge-sheet/termination and reinstatement declined – Court found proceedings aimed at suitability assessment; writ not entertained on asserted technicalities in absence of prejudice or punitive foundation [Paras 30, 32-33].

Decision – Both writ petitions WPA 7478 of 2018 and WPA 25707 of 2017 dismissed – No illegality or impropriety in termination dated 08/12/2017; urgent certified copy direction issued [Paras 34-35].

Lease Agreement – COVID-19 – Force Majeure Clause – Appeal Dismissed – Rent partially waived for lockdown period – Liquidated damages and penal rent claims rejected due to lack of actual loss – Amendment to Section 10 of Specific Relief Act held inapplicable to pre-2018 contracts [Paras 26-27, 44-46, 60-68].

Force Majeure – Lease Interpretation – Clause 12 invoked during COVID-19 – Pandemic held to be covered under “Act of God” and “Embargo” – Court upheld that the conditions in Clause 12 were illustrative, not exhaustive – Held: Lockdown restrictions justified non-payment of rent for April and May 2020 [Paras 26-27, 46-48].

Penalty Clauses – Clauses 14.2 and 7.2 – Claim for six months’ additional rent and double rent rejected – Held: No breach committed by lessee, and liquidated damages require proof of actual loss under Sections 73 & 74 of Contract Act – Contractual amount is upper limit; reasonable compensation necessary – Penal rent not awarded [Paras 39-46, 54-58].

Specific Relief – Retrospective Application – Amended Section 10 of Specific Relief Act not applicable to contracts executed before 01.10.2018 – Held: Court’s discretion in granting relief retained under pre-amendment law – SC decisions in Katta Sujatha Reddy and Daivasigamani relied upon [Paras 60-71].

Equitable Apportionment – Shared Burden of Pandemic – Court awarded 50% rent for April–May 2020 – Justified on ground that both lessor and lessee suffered economic hardship – Held: Equitable solution in absence of rent waiver agreement [Paras 52-53].

Summary Judgment – Maintainability – Application under Order XIII-A filed by appellant – Appellant estopped from arguing that suit required trial – Court justified in granting limited relief and rejecting exaggerated claims without trial [Para 74].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Force majeure clause rightly applied – No penal or double rent awarded – Rent granted at 50% for April–May 2020 and full rent from June 2020 to December 2020 – Interest and GST arrears also awarded – Decree of Single Judge upheld in entirety [Paras 51, 73, 75-76].

Bail – MPID Act Offence – ₹377 crore fraud – Bail Rejected – Applicant, a Director of A.S. Agri & Aqua LLP, allegedly induced gullible investors with promises of doubled returns and crores of rupees per year – Investigation revealed siphoning of deposits, seizure of incriminating records, and similar antecedents – Court held gravity of offence, scale of fraud, and applicant’s role outweigh bail considerations – Bail application dismissed [Paras 18–22].

Arrest Grounds – Section 50 CrPC and Article 22(1) – Compliance sufficient if grounds conveyed – Applicant argued violation for want of written arrest grounds – Held: Since arrest was prior to SC ruling in Pankaj Bansal (03.10.2023), requirement of written grounds not mandatory – Communication through remand report and diary entries adequate – No demonstrable prejudice shown – Argument rejected [Paras 13–17].

Parity – Bail to Co-accused – Principle not Applicable – Applicant sought bail citing co-accused released by Trial Court – State has challenged their bail orders – Court held scale of fraud and applicant’s antecedents make parity inapplicable – Rejection sustained [Para 20].

MPID Act – Objective – Protection of Depositors – Court observed the scheme was not a genuine business venture but a unilateral promise of fixed returns – Precisely the mischief MPID Act intends to prevent – Bail denied in larger public interest [Paras 19, 21].

Decision – Bail Application No. 4116/2024 rejected – No case for exercise of discretion under Section 439 CrPC – Applicant to remain in custody pending trial [Para 22].