Land Assignment – Interpretation of “Shop Sites” – Petroleum Outlet Not Barred – Writ Allowed – Petitioner sought NOC to establish petroleum outlet on assigned land – Application rejected by ADM citing Government Order interpreting “shop sites” as “small shops” – High Court held: Rule 3 of the Special Rules, 1993 does not restrict shops to small shops – Government Order (Ext.P5) is only an opinion and not binding – Rejection based solely on Ext.P5 interpretation unsustainable [Paras 1, 4, 6, 9].

Forest Conservation Act – Not Applicable to Land Assigned Under Special Rules – Status Not Forest Land – Government argued Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act applies as land remains forest – Court held: Forest land assigned under 1993 Rules ceases to be forest land – Cited Full Bench decision in Nature Lovers Movement upheld by Supreme Court – Rebutted claim of continued forest status [Paras 5–6].

Statutory Interpretation – No Authority to Override Rule by Executive Order – Court observed that executive interpretation (Ext.P5) cannot limit a statutory rule unless amended by due process – Usage restriction to “small shops” not found in Rule 3 – Administrative explanation cannot curtail statutory entitlement [Paras 6, 9].

Decision – Rejection Order Quashed – Direction to Reconsider NOC – Ext.P4 order rejecting NOC set aside – 2nd respondent directed to reconsider petitioner’s application afresh, ignoring Ext.P5 and based solely on Rule 3 – Decision to be made within two months after hearing the petitioner [Paras 7].

Criminal Law – Murder - Section 302 IPC - Circumstantial Evidence – Mere Presence at Scene – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC based on testimony that he was seen near canal shortly before deceased disappeared – Held: Mere presence near place of incident does not establish guilt – No eyewitness account or any act connecting appellant with alleged offence – No chain of circumstantial evidence established – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 12, 14]

Extra Judicial Confession – Non-Examination of Witness – Inadmissibility – Prosecution’s Case Failed – Prosecution alleged confession made by accused before Suraj Bhan – Witness not examined – Held: Alleged confession is inadmissible and cannot be relied upon – Extra judicial confession is inherently weak evidence and requires strong corroboration – Absence of corroboration and non-examination fatal to prosecution [Paras 9, 13, 14]

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death by Drowning – No Injuries – Accidental Death Not Ruled Out – Medical Board concluded cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning – No external injuries found – Held: Defence version of accidental fall into canal plausible – Medical opinion does not support homicidal violence – Supports appellant’s plea of innocence [Paras 4, 5, 6, 11]

Delay in Lodging FIR – Lack of Immediate Allegation – Effect on Prosecution Credibility – Initial DDR recorded on 27.12.2000 presumed accidental drowning – FIR with murder allegation filed three days later on 30.12.2000 – Held: Delay in lodging FIR without explanation diminishes reliability – Original report made no accusation – Subsequent version appears improved [Paras 2, 4, 14]

Decision – Conviction Reversed – Appellant Acquitted – Appeal Allowed – No Evidence Connecting Accused to Offence – Bail Bonds Discharged – Case Property to be Destroyed After Limitation Period [Paras 14, 15, 16]

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity Not Involved – Bail Granted - Applicant Palwinder Kaur was arrested based on alleged monetary transactions linked to narcotics trafficking network – Court noted that the contraband recovered did not qualify as “commercial quantity” – Held: Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act not attracted – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 1, 8–10, 14–15].

Presumption of Innocence – Trial Pending – No Criminal History – Bail Justified - Court reiterated principle that pre-trial incarceration amounts to punishment before conviction – Found no previous criminal antecedents of applicant – Investigation complete and charge-sheet filed – Held: Continued custody unjustified, especially where trial unlikely to conclude soon [Paras 9–12].

Women Accused – Section 480(ii) BNSS – Special Consideration for Bail - Citing statutory proviso for women under Section 480(ii) of BNSS, Court held that applicant being a woman could be released on bail even in narcotics-related cases, provided other conditions are satisfied – Held: Bail granted subject to safeguards [Para 11].

Decision – Bail Allowed – Subject to Conditions - Applicant ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety – Conditions imposed include regular court attendance, no tampering with evidence, and no travel outside India without court's permission – State given liberty to seek cancellation upon violation [Paras 14–16].

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Compounding of Offence – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioner convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque of ₹3,90,000 – Conviction upheld by appellate court with modification of sentence from rigorous to simple imprisonment – During pendency of revision, parties amicably settled matter – Full cheque amount deposited – Held: In view of Section 147 of NI Act and law laid down in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., matter compounded and conviction set aside – Petitioner acquitted [Paras 1, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14]

Criminal Procedure – Post-Conviction Settlement – Permissibility – Section 147 NI Act Overrides Section 320(9) CrPC – Court allowed compounding even after conviction, relying on judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court – Held: Section 147 being a special provision overrides Section 320(9) CrPC – Compounding permissible at revisional stage – No legal impediment to accept compromise [Paras 10, 11, 12]

Compounding Fee – Reduction Permissible Based on Financial Condition – Token Amount Directed – Considering petitioner’s poor financial condition and in line with Damodar S. Prabhu and K. Subramanian v. R. Rajathi, Court reduced compounding fee to ₹10,000 – Directed to be deposited with H.P. State Legal Services Authority within four weeks [Paras 16, 17, 18]

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Quashed – Offence Compounded – Bail Bonds Discharged – Registry Directed to Release Deposited Amounts to Complainant After Verification [Paras 14, 15, 18, 19]

Facie Case Under Section 289 IPC – Quashing Denied – Complaint alleged attack by 10–12 unchained pet dogs resulting in injury to complainant – Petitioner disputed ownership and claimed possession of only one dog – Court held that allegations indicated potential negligent omission attracting Section 289 IPC – Charge-sheet based on witness statements including Nitesh Bansal supported prima facie case – Matter requires full-fledged trial [Paras 3–6, 17–21, 25–27, 39].

Injury Report – Absence of External Injury Not Fatal – ‘Probable Danger’ Sufficient Under Section 289 IPC – Injury report noted “No obvious external injury” but recorded subjective pain and advised X-ray – Court held actual grievous injury not necessary under Section 289 IPC – Complaint of attack leading to fall could constitute harm under IPC – Disputed facts to be assessed at trial [Paras 7, 22–24, 31, 36, 38].

Mens Rea – Negligence May Be Inferred – Question of Fact for Trial – Petitioner argued lack of mental element (mens rea) – Court noted negligence under Section 289 includes omission of reasonable care – Whether conduct was negligent is to be determined from evidence at trial – Not a ground for quashing [Paras 8, 25, 40].

Botched Investigation – Allegations Inadequate to Quash Proceedings – Defence to Be Proved at Trial – Petitioner alleged failure to collect CCTV, photos, or proof of ownership – Court held such deficiencies do not invalidate charge-sheet if prima facie case exists – Disputed questions including number of dogs and ownership must be tested through evidence [Paras 9, 26, 30, 35, 37].

Abuse of Process – High Threshold for Quashing – Allegations Not Patently Absurd – Court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be used sparingly – Allegations in FIR not so improbable as to justify quashing – Trial is appropriate forum to determine truth [Paras 28–29, 32–34, 42–44].

Decision – Revision Application Dismissed – Trial Directed – Criminal proceeding not quashed – Trial Court directed to proceed with G.R. Case No. 4333 of 2022 expeditiously – Observations made not to influence trial on merits [Paras 45–47].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Conversion to Culpable Homicide – Appeal partially allowed – Common Intention – Incident arose from a sudden altercation over crop damage caused by accused’s cattle – Appellants along with others armed with lathis and one (Sukh Ram) with a “kanta” assaulted deceased Shyam Lal – Trial court convicted all under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC – High Court reappraised the evidence and held that the prosecution failed to prove a premeditated intention to kill – Assault held to be in heat of passion without undue advantage – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC attracted – Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC read with Section 149 IPC [Paras 4, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 43].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Injured Witnesses – P.W. 1 Chet Ram and P.W. 2 Punni were injured eyewitnesses – Their testimonies found consistent and trustworthy with no material contradictions – Court relied on principles laid down by the Supreme Court giving higher evidentiary value to injured witnesses – Evidence corroborated by medical reports [Paras 24–26].

Independent Witness – Reliability – P.W. 5 Dal Singh claimed to be an independent witness but his account about purchasing potatoes weeks in advance and material improvements in court led to rejection of his testimony – Court found his presence at the spot doubtful and refused to place reliance on his version [Paras 28–30].

Medical Evidence – Injuries on Deceased – Deceased Shyam Lal sustained multiple injuries including two on the head – Only one lacerated wound found on vital part – No incised wounds linked directly to Sukh Ram’s kanta – Court held that injuries did not conclusively prove intention to cause death – Circumstances aligned with culpable homicide not amounting to murder [Paras 31, 35].

Delay in FIR – Explained satisfactorily due to fall of night and lack of conveyance – Not fatal to prosecution’s case [Para 12].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC set aside – Appellants Sukh Ram and Bhupal convicted under Section 304 Part II r/w 149 IPC, Section 325 r/w 149 IPC, and Section 323 r/w 149 IPC – Sentence modified to period already undergone – Each fined ₹25,000 to be paid as compensation to legal heirs of deceased – In default, three months' imprisonment – Directions for compliance and honorarium to Amicus Curiae [Paras 41–47].

Civil Law - Injunction – Temporary Injunction Against Non-Party – Order 39 CPC – Not Maintainable – Appellants sought temporary injunction restraining respondent (a subsequent purchaser) from raising construction on suit property – Respondent was not party to the pending appeal or the original suit – Held: Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, temporary injunctions can be granted only against parties to the suit or appeal – Civil court lacks jurisdiction to pass interim injunction against a stranger to proceedings – Proper remedy is to institute independent suit [Paras 7, 11–14].

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Applicability to Transferee Pendente Lite – Rights Subject to Decree – But No Automatic Injunction Without Party Status – Although respondent was transferee pendente lite and took subject to decree dated 19.02.2007, injunction cannot be passed in his absence from proceedings – Legal principles from Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram relied upon but distinguished – Transferee must be impleaded or subjected to separate proceedings [Paras 8–10, 14].

Civil Procedure – Scope of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC – Injunctions Limited to Parties and Suit Property – Court reaffirmed that interim injunction is a tool to preserve subject matter of lis between parties – Claim must be raised in proceedings to warrant protective relief – No jurisdiction to injunct non-parties under Order 39 CPC [Paras 12–13].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Interim Relief Against Non-Party Purchaser – Remedy Lies in Separate Suit – Appellants failed to implead purchaser in appeal or institute independent proceedings – No basis to interfere with order dated 20.10.2020 of District Judge, Budgam – Appeal dismissed with no costs [Paras 15–16].

Criminal Law – Transfer of Investigation - Suspicious Death – Alleged Harassment in Public Undertaking – CBI Investigation Ordered - The deceased Vimal Negi, a GM at HPPCL, allegedly faced sustained pressure to approve irregular financial decisions – Inquiry by Additional Chief Secretary (Home) confirmed misconduct by senior officers – Report suppressed by State and ignored by SIT – Held: Exceptional case warranting CBI investigation to ensure impartiality [Paras 25–34, 38–39].

Forensic Tampering – Recovery of Pen Drive – SIT Found Complicit – Transfer Justified - Pen drive recovered from deceased’s body was formatted, and digital evidence tampered with – Director General of Police’s affidavit exposed irregularities and suppression of vital facts – Held: Destruction of evidence by investigating officers mandated transfer to independent agency [Paras 13–14, 36–37].

Failure to Investigate Conspiracy Angle – Inquiry Report Overlooked – Bias Indicated - Despite serious statements recorded in inquiry report about coercion to release project payments, SIT failed to explore conspiracy behind Vimal Negi’s death – Held: Lack of action reflects investigative bias and undermines public confidence in SIT [Paras 30–35].

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Transfer of Investigation – When Warranted - Court invoked Article 226 of the Constitution to transfer investigation to CBI based on precedents where State investigation lacked credibility – Held: Investigation not transparent; power rightly exercised [Paras 19–24, 38–39].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Investigation Handed Over to CBI - In light of procedural lapses, ignored inquiry findings, and allegations of bias, Court directed transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation – Himachal Pradesh cadre officers barred from SIT composition – Petition and pending applications disposed of [Para 39].

Civil Law - Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Amendment of Written Statement – Clarificatory Nature – Revision Dismissed – Defendant sought amendment to clarify stand on receipt of ₹12,50,000/- for his own share and to assert that receipt of ₹28,00,000/- was forged – Trial Court allowed amendment stating it was consistent with preliminary objections already on record – Held: Amendment was merely clarificatory and necessary for adjudication of dispute – Petition challenging order dismissed [Paras 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8]

Civil Procedure – Delay in Seeking Amendment – Admission in Earlier Pleadings – Not a Bar – Defendant’s plea regarding receipt of consideration and fabrication of endorsement was raised in preliminary objections – Absence of clarification in merits portion of written statement did not bar amendment – Court recorded statement of defendant that no further evidence would be led – No prejudice caused – Amendment rightly allowed [Paras 5, 6, 7]

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Amendment held essential for fair adjudication – No prejudice demonstrated by petitioner – Pending applications also disposed [Para 8]