Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability – Marketing Firm's Responsibility under Insecticides Act – Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal complaint – Petitioners are marketing agents, not manufacturers – Sample from sealed packet with no allegation of tampering or improper storage – Marketing firm cannot be held vicariously liable for misbranding under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, and 33 of the Insecticides Act – Petition allowed, complaint quashed. [Paras 1-23]

Misbranding and Marketing Firms – Analysis – Marketing agents not responsible for product quality or labeling as defined under Section 3(k)(i) – Liability under Sections 17 and 18 requires involvement in manufacturing or sale of unregistered/prohibited insecticides – Petitioners' role limited to marketing without control over manufacturing process – No vicarious liability for marketing agents. [Paras 10-22]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to previous High Court decisions affirming non-liability of marketing agents for misbranding – Supreme Court judgment in M/s Cheminova India Limited &Anr vs. State of Punjab &Ors emphasizes liability limited to responsible officers under Section 33 – Consistent interpretation of marketing agents' role reaffirmed. [Para 21]

Decision – Quashing of Complaint – Petition allowed – Complaint and summoning order under Insecticides Act quashed – Marketing agents not liable for misbranding without involvement in manufacturing or quality control – Petitioners relieved from prosecution. [Para 23]

Criminal Law - Maintainability of FIR under PNDT Act – Petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging FIR – FIR registered for offences under PNDT Act, 1994 – Held, FIR is maintainable for offences under the Act – For taking cognizance, report under Section 173 CrPC must be accompanied by a complaint from the appropriate authority as per Section 28 of the Act – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-17]

Cognizance of Offences – Analysis – Section 28 PNDT Act stipulates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence except on a complaint by the appropriate authority or a person with prior notice to the appropriate authority – FIR registration allowed, but trial proceeds based on appropriate complaint – Court's cognizance is conditional on receiving the correct complaint. [Paras 11-13]

Procedure for Clubbing Complaint and FIR Cases – Held – In case of simultaneous complaint and police investigation, Section 210 CrPC mandates clubbing of both – Magistrate to try the combined cases as if both were instituted on a police report – Argument that trial should proceed like a complaint case rejected. [Paras 14-15]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Division Bench decision in 'Hardeep Singh & Another vs. State of Haryana & others' clarifies that FIR can be lodged and investigated by police, but court takes cognizance based on the appropriate authority's complaint. [Paras 12]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – FIR and subsequent proceedings found maintainable under PNDT Act – Petition for quashing the FIR and proceedings dismissed – Petitioners advised to seek clubbing of cases under Section 210 CrPC. [Paras 16-17]

Injunction - Co-ownership and Co-sharers – Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution – Injunction granted against co-sharers and co-owners restraining interference in possession – Petitioners challenged the injunction on the ground that it could not be granted against a co-sharer – Held, co-sharers who fail to establish exclusive possession cannot deny the right to another co-sharer already in possession – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-15]

Exclusive Possession and Interim Injunction – Analysis – Petitioners failed to establish exclusive possession or cultivating possession of the suit land – Reliance on non-revenue documents (web-portal declarations) insufficient – Respondents demonstrated prima facie possession with supporting documents – Balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favor of respondents – Injunction upheld. [Paras 6-13]

Legal Principles – For an interim injunction, triple test required: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss – Petitioners' failure to meet these criteria and respondents' successful demonstration of possession warranted upholding the injunction. [Paras 11-12]

Judicial Precedents – Referenced judgments establish that exclusive possession must be proven for an injunction against co-sharers – General right to use land as a co-owner does not override specific demonstrated possession rights. [Paras 8-10]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – No illegality or impropriety found in the lower court's judgment – Petitioners' claim dismissed – Respondents' possession and rights protected by interim injunction. [Para 14]

Family Law - Divorce – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Divorce granted to husband – Parties living separately for approximately 20 years – Strong presumption that marriage has broken down – Court considers the prolonged separation and the futility of preserving an unworkable marriage – Divorce granted with a permanent alimony of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the wife – Appeal allowed. [Paras 1-36]

Cruelty and Desertion – Analysis – Held – Husband's allegations of cruelty, including filing of false complaints and causing harm to his career – Court finds conduct of the wife in making false allegations and complaints constitutes mental cruelty – Wife's refusal to resume cohabitation and failure to withdraw complaints as agreed in a previous compromise exacerbates the situation – Divorce granted based on cruelty and desertion. [Paras 1-36]

Judicial Approach – Principles – Court emphasizes need for realistic and human approach in matrimonial disputes – Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce considered pragmatically – Reference to various Supreme Court judgments to underscore principles guiding the dissolution of marriages that have effectively ended. [Paras 13, 30, 34]

Decision – Divorce Granted – Appeal allowed – District Judge's order set aside – Decree of divorce granted – Husband directed to provide permanent alimony of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the wife. [Paras 1, 36]

Criminal Law - Principles for Parole and Furlough – Grant of Furlough During Elections – Petitioner challenges the order granting furlough to Gurmit Ram Rahim Singh, accused of rape and murder, especially during the Assembly Elections in Punjab – Court holds that furlough is intended to break the monotony of imprisonment and can be granted without specific reasons, but should consider public interest and security concerns – Furlough granted for 21 days has been completed, rendering the petition infructuous – Court emphasizes protection of minor victims from further trauma and maintains the dismissal of the petition challenging the furlough order​​.

Interpretation of Penal Provisions - Lean Towards Lesser Penalty – Court reiterates settled rule that if two reasonable interpretations of a penal provision exist, the one favoring the accused should be adopted – Legislature’s intention must be considered, and courts should not aid in correcting or amending legislative defects unless the vires of the enactment are challenged​​.

Decision: Petition disposed of as infructuous – Gurmit Ram Rahim Singh's furlough completed – The respondent-State is advised to consider all convictions while deciding on further furlough/parole in accordance with law​​.

Service Law - Dismissal without Inquiry – Rape Charges Against Teacher – Appeal against dismissal without inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India – Appellant, a teacher, accused of raping two minor girls – Dismissal from service without regular inquiry to prevent trauma and social stigma to minors – High Court upheld dismissal citing Division Bench judgment in 2012 (2) SCT 85, emphasizing protection of minors from further humiliation and trauma in departmental inquiries – Appeal dismissed. Held that the employer's decision was justified given the minors' age and potential trauma. The High Court's decision was upheld, emphasizing the need to protect minors from cross-examination in such sensitive cases​​.

Constitutional Law - Article 311(2)(b) – Application – Protection of minors' dignity in cases of sexual assault by educators – Departmental inquiry dispensed with to prevent further mental agony and social stigma to minor victims – Employer's decision to dismiss without inquiry upheld as valid under Article 311(2)(b) – High Court reiterated importance of safeguarding minor victims' well-being over procedural requirements​​.

Decision: Dismissal without departmental inquiry upheld – Appeal dismissed. The order of the Director School Education to dismiss the appellant teacher was deemed appropriate to prevent further trauma to the minor victims and to maintain the dignity of the educational institution​​.

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – Article 311(2)(b) Constitution of India – Sections 451, 354, 376B IPC – Rules 7.2(b) & 3 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 – Teacher accused of raping two minor students – Dismissal without regular inquiry – Apprehension of mental agony and social stigma to minors if subjected to cross-examination – Held: Justified in the interest of minors’ well-being and avoiding humiliation – Order of dismissal upheld. [Paras 1-16]

Protection of Minor Victims – Cross-Examination – Embarrassment and Trauma – Allegations against teacher involved moral turpitude – Protecting minors from further trauma and social stigma considered – Legal and administrative prudence in avoiding exposure of minors to cross-examination in departmental inquiries – Decision not to interfere with dismissal due to valid concerns of further victimization. [Paras 12-14]

Evidence and Influence – Witness Intimidation – Allegations of influencing witnesses leading to their hostility – Importance of protecting vulnerable witnesses from intimidation and undue influence – Decision to dispense with regular inquiry supported by evidence of threats and attempts to tamper with witnesses. [Paras 13, 15]

Decision – Dismissal Upheld – Appeal dismissed – Orders of the Single Judge and Director School Education upheld – No fault in dispensing with regular inquiry to protect minor victims – Principles of justice and sensitivity to minors’ trauma emphasized. [Paras 16]

Labour Law - Reference of Dispute Without Notice – Petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging order of reference to Labour Court – Reference made under Section 17(2) of the 1955 Act without notice to employer – Held, notice not required under Section 17(2) of the 1955 Act unlike the 1947 Act – Employer's petition dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Distinction Between 1955 Act and 1947 Act – Analysis – Section 17(2) of the 1955 Act does not mandate notice to the employer before making a reference to adjudicatory mechanism – Procedure under 1955 Act distinct from conciliatory procedure under 1947 Act – Reference based on 'question' regarding wages, not 'dispute' – Employer’s involvement begins only post-reference at adjudicatory stage. [Paras 9]

Employer’s Right to Hearing – Clarification – Employer entitled to hearing only during adjudication, not prior to reference – Government’s duty to refer wage-related questions to adjudicatory mechanism without employer’s pre-reference involvement – Employer’s challenge to lack of notice before reference untenable. [Paras 9]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court judgments and previous High Court decisions affirming procedural distinctions between the Acts – Reliance on inapplicable case (Jagran Parkashan Limited) deemed irrelevant to present context. [Para 10]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Reference order upheld – Employer’s requirement of notice before reference under 1955 Act rejected – Petition dismissed due to lack of merit. [Paras 11]

Criminal Procedure – Interlocutory Order – Travel Abroad – Sections 482, 397(2) Cr.P.C. – Petition for setting aside order declining permission to travel abroad – Order qualifies as interlocutory, barring revision under Section 397(2) – Petition under Section 482 maintainable – Petitioner a permanent resident of Australia, previously granted permission to travel – No genuine dispute on job offer – Conditions imposed for ensuring return – Petition allowed. [Para 4-5, 7-8]

Personal Liberty – Article 21 of Constitution – Right to Travel – Supreme Court precedents affirm right to travel abroad as part of personal liberty – Restrictions permissible only by procedure established by law – In matrimonial disputes, accused’s right to travel upheld with conditions ensuring presence in trial – Conditions imposed to balance right and trial requirements. [Para 6-7]

Decision – Order Set Aside – Permission to Travel Granted – Impugned order quashed – Petitioner permitted to travel to Australia for six months – Conditions imposed to ensure return and participation in trial – Petition disposed of. [Para 8-10]