Tenancy Law - Eviction Petition – Delay in filing Leave to Defend – Section 13-B read with Section 18-A of East Punjab Rent Act – Dismissal of Delay Condonation Application Upheld - Tenant failed to file leave to defend application within 15 days of service under Section 18-A – Held: Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act – Statutory period of 15 days mandatory – Procedural requirements under Schedule II complied – Eviction order rightly passed [Paras 8-13].

Limitation Act – Applicability to Rent Act Proceedings – Section 5 of Limitation Act Inapplicable – Special Procedure under Section 18-A is Complete Code – The East Punjab Rent Act and Schedule II oust Section 5 of Limitation Act – No extension of time permitted for filing leave to defend – Principles of law reaffirmed by Supreme Court and High Court – Procedural compliance binding [Paras 10-11].

Miscommunication between Tenant and Counsel – No Ground for Condonation – Plea of Tenant regarding miscommunication rejected – Certified copies of summons clearly indicated obligation to apply for leave within prescribed time – Absence of valid statutory service not proved – Rigorous statutory procedure to be followed [Paras 6-7, 12].

Decision – Revision Petition dismissed – Order of eviction passed by Rent Controller upheld – Delay in filing application fatal – Tenant not entitled to contest eviction petition [Paras 13-14].
 

Consumer Law - Challenge to order of NCDRC – Refund for Delay in Possession – Flat Purchaser Entitled – State Commission Order Upheld – Petitioner Builder failed to deliver flat despite investment of ₹6.5 lakhs by Respondent in 2010-2011 – State Commission ordered refund with 9% interest and compensation – NCDRC rejected delayed appeal – Writ Petition dismissed [Paras 3-7].

Delay Condonation – 1132-Day Delay Not Satisfactorily Explained – Condonation Denied – National Commission found petitioners’ justification (COVID, firm dissolution, health issues, settlement talks) unsubstantiated and casual – Held: Law of limitation requires reasonable, good-faith explanation – No interference warranted by High Court [Paras 8-20].

Consumer Status – Flat Purchaser is a Consumer – Challenge Baseless – Petitioner argued Respondent not a “consumer” under the Act – Rejected: Respondent paid for residential flat and falls within definition under Section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act [Para 16].

Abuse of Process Allegation – No Evidence – Dismissed as Bald Assertion – Petitioner accused Respondent of fabricating receipts and abusing law – Held: Allegations baseless, unsupported by material – Can't substitute for legal grounds [Para 16].

Writ Jurisdiction – No Relief Without Clean Hands – Supreme Court Precedents Applied – Petitioners failed to act diligently, adopted “wait and watch” approach till settlement failed – Attempt to defeat execution process – Held: Writ remedy cannot aid party lacking bona fides [Paras 20, 23-24].

Consumer Law – Beneficial Legislation – Delay Defeats Purpose – Emphasis on Expeditious Resolution – Referring to Alpha G Corp. and other SC cases, Court reiterated that delay thwarts consumer justice mechanism – High threshold for condonation reaffirmed [Paras 18-29].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – NCDRC acted within law, applied correct principles – Writ petition held misconceived and dismissed without costs [Paras 30-31].
 

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Allegations under IPC and SC/ST Act – Quashing Partially Allowed – The applicants sought to quash the FIR and proceedings initiated under sections of IPC and the SC/ST Act arising out of alleged cruelty and caste-based abuse following an inter-caste marriage – The Court observed that applicant No.4 (sister-in-law) was only alleged to have made general statements about divorce and remarriage, and no specific caste-based abuse or cruelty was attributed to her – Held: Allegations against applicant No.4 do not establish cruelty or attract provisions of the SC/ST Act; proceedings against her quashed to prevent abuse of process – Application withdrawn in respect of applicant Nos.1 to 3 [Paras 13-15].

Decision: The application was allowed in part – Proceedings in Special Case No.273 of 2023 quashed only with respect to Applicant No.4 (Apurva Nitinchandra Patil) – Application of Applicant Nos.1 to 3 was dismissed as withdrawn.

Criminal Trial – Power to Recall Witness – Application to Summon Past FIRs – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought to summon previous FIRs and related evidence against the accused during prosecution evidence stage, citing them as essential for a just decision – Held: Petition was a belated attempt to fill lacunae in prosecution case; trial already ongoing for over seven years; discretionary power under Section 348 BNSS must be exercised judiciously, not for delaying trial or surprising the defence [Paras 1-7].

Section 348 BNSS (Erstwhile Section 311 CrPC) – Judicial Discretion – Not for Lacunae Repair – High Court reiterated principles from Supreme Court in V.N. Patil vs. K. Niranjan and Sukhdev Singh vs. State of Punjab, emphasizing that this power should be invoked only to avoid failure of justice, not to bolster weak prosecution [Paras 6-7].

Procedural Fairness – Abuse of Judicial Process – High Court Criticizes Trial Delay – The court held that belated efforts to introduce new evidence, particularly when prosecution was aware of it from inception, amounted to procedural abuse – Held: Trial courts must maintain balance and ensure no party is blindsided or prejudiced [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Error in Lower Court Order – High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of application under Section 348 BNSS, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions – Held: Petition dismissed; pending applications also disposed of [Para 8].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Criminal Proceedings in Matrimonial Disputes – General Omnibus Allegations – Proceedings Quashed in Part – Supreme Court precedents reiterated that vague, sweeping allegations lacking specifics against distant relatives cannot sustain criminal charges – FIR and charge sheet quashed against Petitioner No.4 (a distant relative) for lack of necessary ingredients under Sections 504 and 506 IPC – Proceedings to continue against husband (Petitioner No.1) and sister-in-law (Petitioner No.3) based on detailed factual narrative [Paras 22–27, 30–33, 37].

Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process Prevention – Petition Partially Allowed – High Court invoked its inherent powers to prevent abuse of judicial process – Emphasized that courts should not allow criminal trials to continue on vague and unsubstantiated claims, particularly where specific criminal intent or intimidation is not alleged or evident [Paras 7–21, 26–28].

Role of Trial Court – Appreciation of Evidence – Left Open – Observed that once the charge sheet is filed, the trial court should be allowed to consider discharge under Section 227 CrPC based on full materials—High Court limited its scrutiny to maintainability of proceedings qua each petitioner [Paras 35–36].

Final Decision – FIR Quashed as Against Petitioner No.4 – Proceedings Against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 to Continue – Petition partly allowed – No opinion expressed on merits of pending trial [Paras 37–39].

Criminal Law – Murder - Appeals Against Conviction  - Sole Eyewitness – Contradictions in Testimony – Conviction Set Aside – Informant (PW3), wife of deceased, alleged dragging and joint assault by accused – Cross-examination revealed inconsistencies regarding sequence and participation – Medical evidence did not support claim of dragging – Held: Sole testimony lacked corroboration and credibility – Conviction based solely on such evidence unsustainable [Paras 60–70, 85–86].

Section 34 IPC – Common Intention – Absence of Overt Act – Applicability Denied – PW3 admitted only one accused (now deceased) struck blows – No specific role or overt act attributed to appellants – Held: Mere presence or instigation insufficient without proof of shared intention or participation – Essential ingredients of Section 34 not satisfied – Constructive liability not attracted [Paras 71–83, 86–90].

Minor Discrepancies vs Material Contradictions – Witness Reliability – Prosecution Version Undermined – Contradictions between FIR and deposition of PW3 on presence of weapons, sequence of events, and number of assailants – Medical evidence did not corroborate dragging – Held: Contradictions went to root of matter, not minor – Witness’s version not wholly trustworthy [Paras 63–70].

Non-Examination of Material Witness – Adverse Inference – Chaukidar Not Examined – Informant stated she first reported to village watchman – Held: Failure to examine first informant in timeline affects prosecution narrative – Independent corroboration missing – Adverse inference justified [Paras 93–96].

Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof in Criminal Trials – Conviction Requires Certainty – Prosecution failed to establish guilt of appellants beyond reasonable doubt – Citing principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, Rang Bahadur Singh, Krishnegowda – Held: When two views are possible, one favoring innocence must be adopted – Appellants entitled to acquittal [Paras 97–105].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Anjulas Lakra (in Cr. Appeal No. 1018/2003) and Isdor Lakra (in Cr. Appeal No. 1327/2003) acquitted – Appeals abated qua deceased appellants Kuwar Lakra and Patras Lakra [Paras 106–108].

Ex-Parte Injunction – Delay in Seeking Relief – Non-Commercial Suit – Interim Relief Denied – Plaintiff filed suit nearly two years after accepting defendants’ resignation and receiving their clarificatory responses – Court held that such delay defeated claim for urgent, ex-parte relief – Trial Court rightly observed no exceptional urgency warranting ex-parte injunction – Held: Discretion exercised by Trial Court is proper; no perversity found to warrant appellate interference [Paras 12–14.2].

Appointment of Receiver and Commissioner – Ex-Parte Relief – Balance of Convenience – Rejected – Trial Court refused ex-parte appointment of receiver and commissioner, noting plaintiff’s delay and absence of urgent risk of destruction of evidence – Liberty granted to seek such reliefs after serving notice to defendants – Held: Proper exercise of discretion; no exceptional circumstance shown – Appellate Court declined interference under Order 43 and Article 227 [Paras 15–16.2].

Scope of Appellate and Supervisory Jurisdiction – Order 43 and Article 227 – Judicial Discipline Reaffirmed – Appellate court reiterated limited scope to interfere with discretionary orders unless patently perverse or arbitrary – Cited precedents like Wander Ltd., Ramakant Choksi, and Sameer Suresh Gupta – Held: Trial Court's decision within bounds of law; no gross failure of justice made out [Paras 11–11.4].

Decision – Appeals and Writ Dismissed – No error, perversity, or arbitrariness found in Trial Court’s discretionary orders refusing ex-parte reliefs – All appeals and writ application dismissed accordingly [Paras 14.2, 16.2].

Civil Law – Injunction - Right to Privacy – Unauthorized Recording in Private Space – Consent Required – Partial Relief Granted – Plaintiff had consented to being recorded during the live debate but not after she exited the debate frame – Court held that the recording of the additional 18 seconds after Plaintiff withdrew was done without consent, violating her privacy under Article 21 – Video segment barred from public circulation – Interim relief granted [Paras 19-20].  

Defamation – False Attribution in Quote Tweet – Partially Defamatory – Quote Tweet by Defendant No. 1 accusing Plaintiff of “chucking the mic” and “throwing out” cameraman held untrue and lacking factual basis – Such assertions not protected by the defence of truth and must be deleted – However, statement about “abusing” the cameraman held substantially true – Partial protection granted under fair comment [Paras 22.4-22.7].

 Doctrine of Clean Hands – Suppression of Plaintiff’s Tweets – Cost Imposed – Plaintiff failed to disclose two tweets forming part of the conversation thread relevant to the case – Court held this to be suppression of material facts – Plaintiff directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- in costs to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerks’ Association [Paras 14, 28].  

Doctored Video Allegation – Not Substantiated – Plaintiff’s claim that the impugned video was doctored found to be unsubstantiated – Local Commissioner report found no conclusive evidence of tampering – Allegation held to be an afterthought [Para 24].  

Norms of Journalistic Conduct – Personal Comments Not Covered – Quote Tweet not a journalistic article but a personal comment of Defendant No. 1 – Norms of journalistic conduct not applicable to Defendant No. 1, but applicable to Defendants 6–10 who reposted and amplified the video without verification – Take-down orders confirmed against those defendants [Paras

23.2-23.4].

 Decision – Interim Injunction Partially Allowed – Video with post-debate 18second segment barred – Defendants 1 and 2 restrained from publishing or circulating impugned segment – Defendants 6 to 10 also directed to remove same – Some parts of tweet text to be retained while defamatory phrases to be taken down – Suit to proceed on merits [Paras 25-30].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Matrimonial Dispute – General Allegations Against In-Laws – Proceedings Quashed in Part - Petitioners challenged FIR under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC – Allegations against petitioner No.4 (Surinder Kaur) were found vague and lacking specific instances of cruelty or provocation – Held: Prosecution against her is abuse of process – FIR and proceedings quashed qua petitioner No.4 [Paras 24–25].

Cruelty – Specific Allegations Against Husband and Sister-in-Law – Proceedings to Continue - Allegations that petitioner No.1 (husband) and petitioner No.3 (sister-in-law) compelled complainant to conceive, denied food and support during pregnancy, and subjected her to physical abuse – Held: Sufficiently specific to warrant trial – Petition to quash FIR against them rejected [Paras 22–23].

Intentional Insult – Ingredients of Section 504 IPC – Not Attracted for Mere Abuse - Citing Vikram Johar and Fiona Shrikhande, Court held that mere abuse without intent to provoke breach of peace does not fulfill requirements of Section 504 IPC – No material indicating intentional insult by petitioner No.4 – FIR quashed to this extent [Paras 24–25].

False Implication – Use of Omnibus Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes – Legal Caution Issued - Court reiterated that vague, generalized complaints against all in-laws must be scrutinized – Referred to Supreme Court precedents in Kahkashan Kausar, Neelu Chopra, Achin Gupta, etc. – Held: No blanket criminalisation of family members without clear roles [Paras 14–20].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed in Part – FIR Quashed Against Petitioner No.4 - Proceedings against petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 to continue – Petition partly allowed under Section 482 CrPC [Para 25].