Article 226 - Property resumed for misuse and non-payment of misuse charges - Significant delay of 10 years in filing writ petition - No sufficient cause or reasonable explanation for delay - Petitioner negligent in pursuing remedies - Petition dismissed due to laches and undue delay. [Paras 1-14]

Negative Equality - Legal Principle - Analysis - Petitioner claimed discrimination as others in the market were not similarly penalized - Right to equality is a positive concept under Article 14 and does not provide for negative equality - Authorities justified in enforcing terms of allotment and imposing misuse charges on petitioner. [Para 9]

Resumption of Property - Last Resort - Legal Consideration - Resumption of property seen as a last resort - Continuous violation of allotment terms by petitioner justified resumption - Petitioner's non-compliance with misuse charge payment led to operationalization of resumption order - Authorities acted within legal bounds. [Paras 11, 13]

Decision - Dismissal of Writ Petition - High Court dismisses the writ petition due to delay, lack of reasonable explanation, and petitioner's failure to comply with previous orders - Resumption order and related decisions upheld - No relief granted to petitioner. [Paras 14-15]

Matrimonial Law - Cruelty - Divorce Petition - Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act - Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition - Allegations of cruelty based on behavior and conduct - Insufficient evidence of cruelty produced by appellant - Subsequent event of respondent migrating to Canada considered - Long separation of parties indicating breakdown of marriage - Decree of divorce granted. [Paras 1-16]

Mental Cruelty - Legal Principles - Analysis - Mental cruelty includes conduct causing mental pain and suffering making it impossible to live with the spouse - Assessment of cruelty based on attending facts and circumstances - Conduct causing reasonable apprehension about mental welfare amounts to cruelty - Long separation and acrimonious allegations indicative of cruelty. [Paras 13-15]

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Judicial Discretion - Legal Consideration - Long period of separation and failure of reconciliation efforts indicate irretrievable breakdown - Subsequent migration of respondent to Canada reinforces breakdown - Courts can grant divorce if marriage is beyond repair despite no statutory ground for irretrievable breakdown. [Paras 14-16]

Decision - Grant of Decree of Divorce - High Court sets aside the dismissal of divorce petition - Decree of divorce granted due to irretrievable breakdown of marriage and long separation - Directions for financial security of minor daughter issued. [Paras 15-17]

Service Law – Retirement Age – Disabilities – The petitioners, employees of the Punjab Government, sought extension of their service beyond the age of 60 years, citing discrimination against employees with visual and other disabilities. They relied on the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Held, there is no provision in the 2016 Act or the Punjab Civil Services Rules for extending the service of disabled employees beyond 60 years. Discrimination claims cannot perpetuate illegalities; wrongful extensions granted earlier do not set a precedent. Guarantee of equality under Article 14 cannot be enforced negatively. The petitions are dismissed. [Paras 1-15]

Equality Before Law – Enforcement – The principle of equality before law under Article 14 is a positive concept and cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality. Even if some individuals were wrongly given benefits, it cannot be cited as a precedent for others to claim similar benefits. [Paras 14-15]

Decision:

Petitions dismissed. There is no provision for extending the service of disabled employees beyond 60 years, and claims of discrimination do not warrant such an extension. The Court dismissed all the connected writ petitions on this issue. [Paras 15-17]

Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Grant of - Conditions - FIR registered against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC - Petitioner apprehending arrest - Petitioner being a first-time offender with no criminal antecedents - Custodial investigation and pre-trial incarceration causing irreparable injustice – Prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations does not justify custodial or pre-trial incarceration - Court empowered to impose stringent conditions to address concerns of influencing investigation or tampering with evidence - Bail granted to the petitioner - Elaborative and stringent conditions imposed - Petitioner to furnish personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and one surety of Rs. 25,000 - Option to provide fixed deposit or surety bond given to the petitioner - Restrictions and obligations imposed on the petitioner to ensure compliance with bail conditions - Petitioner directed to join the investigation and cooperate - Surrender of weapons and firearms ordered - Non-contact and non-interference directions issued - Bail conditions to be balanced, proportional, and not violating fundamental rights - Petitioner entitled to seek reduction or modification of bond amount or conditions - Bail conditions not limiting investigation - Observations made in the order not expressions of opinion on merits of the case - Petition allowed. [Para 5-24]

Negotiable Instruments Act - Territorial Jurisdiction - Petition under Section 482 CrPC - Complaint under Section 138 NI Act filed at Hisar - Complaint returned due to lack of territorial jurisdiction as per pre-amended Section 142 NI Act - Amendment to Section 142 NI Act effective retrospectively - Complaint required to be restored to Trial Court at Hisar - Petition allowed. [Paras 1-10]

Retrospective Effect of Amendment - Legal Analysis - Section 142(2) NI Act amended to provide territorial jurisdiction where cheque is presented for collection - Amendment effective retrospectively as per Section 142A(1) NI Act - Supreme Court interpretation in Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh affirms retrospective application - Complaint returned due to jurisdictional issues prior to amendment must be restored. [Paras 6-9]

Decision - Setting Aside of Trial Court's Order - High Court sets aside order dated 17.10.2014 - Complaint to be restored to its original number in Trial Court at Hisar - Trial Court directed to proceed expeditiously - Petition allowed and pending applications disposed of. [Para 10]

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)