Consumer Law – Execution of Order – Warrant of Arrest Not Permissible Under CrPC – Arrest Order Quashed - Forum directed arrest of petitioner in execution of its order though petitioner was not a party to the original consumer complaint – Held: Consumer Forum lacks authority to issue warrant of arrest under CrPC—Execution must follow CPC provisions under Order XXI—Quashed as beyond jurisdiction [Paras 4–9].

Execution of Consumer Forum Orders – Section 71 of Consumer Protection Act – Mode of Enforcement Clarified - Orders of District, State or National Commission are enforceable as civil decrees—Judgment debtor may be detained in civil prison or property attached—Forum must assess and recover execution costs as per CPC [Paras 5–7].

Alternative Remedy – Section 72 CP Act – Penal Provisions Available – Civil and Penal Routes Distinguished - Decree holder may seek execution under Section 71 (civil) or initiate penalty proceedings under Section 72 (criminal)—Forum cannot bypass due process and invoke CrPC to arrest judgment debtor [Para 8].

Non-Impleadment – Petitioner Not Party to Original Case – Arrest Without Notice Unjustified - Petitioner was not a party to consumer case or execution proceeding and became aware only upon arrest warrant—Court found warrant invalid on procedural and substantive grounds [Paras 2, 4, 9].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Warrant of Arrest Dated 13/12/2019 and Subsequent Orders Quashed – Proceedings against petitioner set aside as ultra vires [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 498A, 302, and 201 IPC – Conviction set aside due to lack of direct evidence and incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence - The prosecution failed to establish any cogent and consistent link between the appellants and the crime – Star witness PW-15's testimony disbelieved due to delay, omissions, and improbabilities – Defence theory of suicide not ruled out – Held: Conviction cannot be sustained [Paras 56-93]. 
 
Section 498A IPC – Allegations of Cruelty – Vague and Omnibus Allegations Insufficient – Conviction unsustainable - No contemporaneous complaint, specific incidents, or details of cruelty alleged – Witnesses depose general dissatisfaction and quarrels without meeting the legal requirements of cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Trial Court wrongly convicted based on conjectures [Paras 55-58]. 
 
Section 106 Evidence Act – No Shift of Burden – Absence of Proof of Presence of Accused - Prosecution failed to prove that appellants were present at the scene at the time of occurrence – Application of Section 106 Evidence Act to infer guilt was misplaced – Mere relationship with deceased or proximity to the incident does not justify shifting burden to accused [Paras 59-61, 75-79, 82]. 
 
Testimony of PW-15 – Delayed Statement under Section 164 CrPC – Reliability Doubtful – Statement rejected - PW-15, a crucial prosecution witness, did not mention incriminating facts in the FIR or inquest report – Delay of over two weeks in recording Section 164 statement unexplained – No prior Section 161 statement recorded – Held: Statement is unreliable and likely an afterthought [Paras 62-71]. 
 
Post-Mortem Evidence – Conducted by Unqualified Person – Opinion Lacking Forensic Value - Post-mortem done under supervision of a doctor without forensic expertise and performed by a Dom untrained for dissection – Report lacked essential details like burn percentage, type of asphyxia, or time of death – Held: Medical evidence unfit for reliance [Paras 83-87]. 
 
Circumstantial Evidence – Failure to Complete Chain – Possibility of Suicide Plausible – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Absence of credible motive, no clear eyewitnesses to the crime, serious lacunae in investigation and medical evidence – Defence theory of suicide or self-inflicted death held probable – Conviction set aside [Paras 84-90]. 
 
Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and Sentences Under Sections 498A, 302, 201 IPC Set Aside – Appellants Acquitted - Held: Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Appellants released [Paras 90-93]. 
 

Civil Writ - Rejection of application filed under Section 32 of the Bihar Consolidation Act - Consolidation Proceedings – Effect of Completion Without Formal Denotification – Collector Rightly Declined Jurisdiction - Court held that once the Draft Scheme under Section 13(1) is finalized and certificates are issued under Section 15, and the scheme is confirmed under Section 16, the consolidation proceedings are deemed complete for all practical purposes – Mere absence of Gazette Notification under Section 26A does not revive Collector’s power under Section 32 – Petition rightly dismissed [Paras 11-12].

Concurrent Civil Suit – Title Suit Pending – Proper Forum Available – Writ Not Maintainable - Since the petitioner had already filed Title Suit No. 802 of 2020 challenging the same gift deed and seeking its cancellation, Court held that consolidation authorities need not proceed in parallel – Civil Court is appropriate forum for adjudication [Paras 11-12].

Delay – Prolonged Delay without Satisfactory Explanation – Petition Filed After 5 Years of Gift Deed - Gift deed was executed in 2016, but petition under Section 32 filed only in 2021 – Plea of petitioner that knowledge arose later was disbelieved – Court noted suppression of fact that petitioner had already participated in earlier title suits related to the same gift [Paras 10-12].

Interpretation – Sections 5 and 32 Read with Full Bench Decision – Voidness of Transfers Post-Consolidation Cannot be Invoked Indefinitely - Following Full Bench in Panna Devi and other judgments, Court reiterated that transfers made post-confirmation of consolidation proceedings cannot be challenged merely due to lack of formal notification under Section 26A if the process is otherwise completed [Paras 8-11].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Collector’s Order Upheld – Petitioner Directed to Pursue Remedy Before Civil Court [Para 13].

Criminal Law - Bail – Section 14-A SC/ST Act – Double Murder Allegation – Bail Denied - Appellant sought regular bail after rejection by Special Judge in a case involving lynching of two individuals accused of theft – Court noted deceased had named appellant in medical history prior to dying declaration – Held: Multiple consistent versions and severity of offence justify continued detention – Bail denied [Paras 2-4, 10-14, 22].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility and Consistency – Injured Complainant's Statement to Doctor – Accepted as First Version - Court held that the complainant, who later died, named appellant in his initial history to the doctor – Deemed credible and consistent with subsequent FIR and dying declaration – Noted that evidence of injured witness carries high probative value under Section 26(a) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam [Paras 10.2, 13, 16].

Unlawful Assembly – Common Object and Group Assault – Section 141 BNS Invoked - Appellant charged with acting in furtherance of common object under Section 190 (formerly 149 IPC) – Assault involved use of deadly weapons on two victims resulting in fatal injuries – Court held specific overt act not necessary where collective intent and presence is established [Paras 11, 17].

Plea of Parity – Bail to Co-Accused – Parity Not Granted – Appellant Named in Early Statement - Appellant sought parity with co-accused granted bail – Court distinguished case noting appellant was named early by complainant, while co-accused were not mentioned in any version – Parity plea rejected [Para 18].

Purpose of Bail – Not Punitive but Preventive – Factors Weighed Against Accused - While reiterating principles for granting bail, Court emphasized gravity, likelihood of tampering, and societal impact – Bail denied despite completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court Directed to Expedite Proceedings - Court held present was not a fit case to exercise discretion under Section 483 of BNSS – Appeal dismissed – Trial court instructed to expedite hearing considering accused is under-trial [Paras 22-23].
 

Criminal Law – Rape – Appeal Against Conviction - Consistency and Reliability of Victim’s Testimony – Conviction Upheld – The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the victim’s story was improbable due to her conduct post-incident and absence of immediate complaint – Held: The victim had reasonable explanation for not lodging immediate complaint as she was influenced by the wife of the accused and was in a distressed condition – The delay does not cause material doubt on the prosecution case – The evidence of the victim is trustworthy and inspires confidence – No material contradictions found to discard her testimony [Paras 16-37]. 
 
Medical Evidence – Injuries and Corroboration – Conviction Supported – The victim’s version was corroborated by medical evidence of four doctors – Bite marks and contusions on sensitive parts like breasts were noticed, which were consistent with her version of forceful assault – Defence argument regarding absence of semen and lack of exact age of bite marks is not sufficient to discard the medical findings – Injuries were found to be fresh and possible due to resistance during the assault [Paras 22-36]. 
 
Delays in Reporting – Impact on Credibility – Delay Explained Satisfactorily – Victim’s reluctance to lodge the complaint immediately was due to threats by the accused and emotional influence of accused’s wife – Her delay was natural considering the circumstances and was adequately explained by subsequent conduct and testimony – Such delay does not create any material doubt [Paras 37-43]. 
 
Law on Rape Convictions – No Corroboration Mandatorily Required – Reliance Placed on Supreme Court Judgment – The court reaffirmed that corroboration is not a sine qua non if the victim’s evidence is trustworthy – Reference made to State of Punjab vs. Gurmeet Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384 – Court can convict based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence – Defence failed to prove any ulterior motive or false implication [Paras 38-42]. 
 
Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The court upheld the conviction recorded by the trial court holding the appellant guilty under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, and 506 of IPC – No infirmity found in the judgment – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 44-45]. 
 

Civil Law - Documentary Evidence – Post-Institution Sale Deeds – Relevancy Not Established – Leave Rightly Denied - Petitioners sought to introduce certified copies of sale deeds executed in 2019 while suit filed in 2010 was at argument stage—Held: Documents did not exist at time of suit, not referred in pleadings, and pertained to other survey numbers—Trial court correctly held them irrelevant to dispute in Sy.No.237 [Paras 2–6, 14].

Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC – Discretion of Court – Not Routine – High Threshold for Late Documents - Court reiterated that documents not filed with plaint can be received at trial only with leave and for good cause—Discretion under Order VII Rule 14(3) is exceptional and must be exercised judiciously, especially when hearing has commenced [Paras 10–13].

Amendment of CPC – Harshness Removed, Not Unrestricted Inclusion - While 2002 Amendment relaxed earlier bar on late filing, Court clarified it still does not permit introduction of unrelated or newly created documents unless clearly relevant and justified—No such justification found in present case [Paras 9–11].

Pleading and Issues – No Basis in Original Suit – New Documents Cannot Broaden Scope - The Court held that bringing post-suit documents into record without corresponding pleadings effectively introduces new issues—Trial courts have discretion to prevent such expansion beyond the plaint [Paras 12–13].

Decision – Civil Revision Petitions Dismissed – No Infirmity in Trial Court’s Rejection of IAs Seeking to Receive Post-Suit Documents – Miscellaneous Petitions Closed – No Costs [Para 15].
 

Service Law – Departmental Appeal – Punishment Enhanced Without Notice – Order Set Aside – Petitioner, a police officer, was initially punished with forfeiture of two increments after an incident involving a minor—Home Secretary enhanced punishment to reduction in rank without issuing notice – Held: Enhancement of penalty without show cause notice violates Rule 16.28(3) of Punjab Police Rules – Order set aside as procedurally illegal [Paras 1–3, 6–11].

Rule 16.28 PPR – Enhancement of Penalty – Review Must Follow Due Process – Respondents claimed Home Secretary acted under Rule 16.28 PPR – Held: Enhancement in appeal cannot be justified under review powers unless separate review proceedings are initiated with due notice – Procedure under Rule 16.28 not followed, making order unsustainable [Paras 7–13].

Merits of Misconduct – Disproportionate Punishment – Incident Did Not Involve Misuse of Authority – Petitioner acted during official duty, found two condoms in a minor’s vehicle—No direct act of abuse or harassment attributed to him – Held: Disciplinary authority’s original punishment of two increment forfeitures was proportionate – Further enhancement unjustified [Para 14].

Judicial Precedent – Appellate Authority Cannot Enhance Punishment Without Power – Ref: Nirvair Singh v. Financial Commissioner Taxation, 2019 (20) GSTL 349 – Held: Unless statute confers specific power, appellate authority cannot impose higher penalty – Impugned action ultra vires [Paras 12–13].

Final Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned Order Quashed – Court restores DGP’s order and sets aside Home Secretary’s order enhancing penalty – Petitioner to retain substantive rank of Head Constable [Para 15].
 

Contractual Employment – Project Closed – No Right to Continue – Termination Held Valid - Appellants were contractual employees under the NIDDCP merged into the RCH Programme – Respondents decided to close the project in Delhi – Held: Contractual employees have no vested right to continue after project closure – Impugned order rightly upheld [Paras 19-24].

Policy Decision – Project Closure – Not Amenable to Judicial Review - Closure of the project was based on expert assessment and policy decision – Court held that such administrative decisions are not open to judicial interference unless arbitrary or malafide, which was not the case here [Paras 20-22].  

Regularisation – Umadevi Principle – Appellants Not Entitled - Appellants' claim for regularisation was rejected – Held: They were engaged on contractual basis co-terminus with the project – Even long service does not confer right to regularisation unless appointment was through proper selection [Paras 19-23].  

Age Relaxation & Experience Consideration – Direction for Future Selection – Relief Granted - Though claims for absorption were rejected, Court directed that appellants should be given age relaxation and due weightage of service experience in future regular recruitment processes [Para 23].

 Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Impugned Order Affirmed – Appellants to be Considered for Regular Selection with Age Relaxation [Para 25].

Service Law - Reservation in Promotion – Quantifiable Data – Constitutionality Upheld – Petitioners challenged reservation policy dated 07.10.2023 alleging non-compliance with requirements under Article 16(4A) – Held: Haryana Government had undertaken a detailed cadre-wise and group-wise study demonstrating inadequacy of SC representation – State complied with the constitutional mandate and Supreme Court guidelines in M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh – Reservation upheld [Paras 10.1-10.5, 12].

Delegation of Power – Promotion Criteria – No Unlawful Delegation Found – Allegation that power under Article 16(4A) was delegated to Departmental Promotion Committees – Rejected – Held: Instructions merely implemented a State policy already backed by quantified data; decision-making authority not abdicated [Paras 6, 10.5].

Creamy Layer Exclusion – Not Applicable to SCs in Promotion – Petitioners argued for application of creamy layer exclusion to SC candidates – Rejected – Held: As per binding precedents including Jarnail Singh and B.K. Pavitra, creamy layer concept not applicable to SCs in the context of promotional reservations [Paras 4.2, 6].

Administrative Efficiency – Article 335 Compliance – Promotion Conditional on Eligibility – Petitioners contended that promotion policy violates Article 335 – Held: Instructions mandated only eligible SC candidates for promotion and maintained performance-based probation – Efficiency of administration safeguarded [Paras 7, 11].

Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Instructions Upheld – Court held that the State of Haryana fulfilled constitutional preconditions for granting reservation in promotions – No constitutional infirmity found – Petitions dismissed, validating the 07.10.2023 instructions [Paras 10-13].