FIR Registration – Denial of FIR registration and protection – Petitioner’s application for FIR registration and protection denied by the High Court – Application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Para 1]

Application of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Magistrate’s discretion in directing police investigation – Magistrate not bound to direct police investigation in every case disclosing a cognizable offence. [Para 10, 16]

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limitation under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C – High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C not to be used as a substitute for second revision petition. [Para 6, 9]

Exercise of High Court’s Inherent Powers – Necessity for High Court to intervene only in cases of miscarriage of justice or abuse of process – High Court’s powers to be exercised sparingly. [Para 4, 5, 18]

Judicial Approach – Requirement for Magistrate to adopt a judicial approach in applications seeking police investigation – Magistrate not to act as a mere post office. [Para 16, 17]

Decision – Dismissal of petition by High Court – No special case made out for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution. [Para 18]

Taxation Law - Tax Demand – Setting Aside of Arbitrary Tax Demand: Petitioner challenged tax demand of Rs. 21,50,150/- for AY 2012-13 raised by respondent – Employer deducted tax but failed to deposit with revenue – Reliance on Section 205 of the Income Tax Act and pertinent judgments – Held, demand set aside as petitioner cannot be penalized for employer’s non-compliance. [Para 1, 4, 6, 8, 10]

Income Tax – TDS Non-Deposit by Employer: Petitioner’s tax deducted at source by employer not deposited with Central Government – Issue of whether petitioner can be held liable for employer’s failure – Referenced judgements indicating no liability on part of petitioner – Held, petitioner not liable for tax payment as per Section 205, Income Tax Act. [Para 2.4, 2.7, 3, 5, 7]

Relief to Taxpayer – Coercive Recovery of Tax Barred: Petitioner’s contention against tax recovery by revenue – Reference to Sanjay Sudan case and Section 199, Income Tax Act – Held, coercive recovery barred, petitioner not to be called upon to pay tax deducted by employer. [Para 5, 6, 9]

Decision – Tax Demand Against Petitioner Nullified: Court allowed petition, setting aside tax demand notices – Restrained revenue from recovery proceedings against petitioner for AY 2012-13 – Condition placed for deposit of any recovered tax from employer. [Para 10]

Industrial Disputes Act – Strike by workers – Entitlement to wages during the strike period – Tribunal’s award granting 50% wages during an illegal strike challenged – Principles of law regarding payment of wages during work stoppages due to strikes discussed. [Para 8]

Industrial Tribunal’s Award – Failure to consider relevant factors – Disregard of financial repercussions on management – Tribunal’s award set aside for not taking into account the impact of modernization and the need for higher production. [Para 9]

Certiorari – Writ of Certiorari issued – Industrial Tribunal’s award quashed – Writ Petition allowed. [Para 10-11]

Revision Against Deposit Order – Petitioner, convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act and directed to pay compensation, challenges the appellate court’s order requiring deposit of 20% of compensation. Raises the issue of financial hardship due to losses during the Covid period. [Para 1, 4]

Appellate Court’s Order – Appellate court suspended the sentence under Section 389 CrPC but imposed a condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount, following the Supreme Court’s direction in Surinder Singh Deshwal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and others Vs. Virender Gandhi and another. [Para 3]

Consideration of Exceptional Circumstances – Petitioner argues for exemption from depositing 20% of the compensation, citing financial difficulties and referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And others. [Para 4-5, 9-11]

Legal Interpretation of Deposit Requirement – High Court discusses the interpretation of Section 148 of the NI Act regarding the deposit of compensation, highlighting that it’s not an absolute rule without exceptions. The appellate court must consider if a case falls under ‘exceptional circumstances’ for exempting the deposit. [Para 7, 9]

Remand for Reconsideration – The High Court sets aside the appellate court’s order and remands the case for reconsideration of the petitioner’s plea about ‘exceptional circumstances’ to exempt the 20% compensation deposit. Directions issued for parties to appear before the appellate court. [Para 12]

Criminal Revision - Deposit of compensation amount - Petitioner convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sentence suspended with the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount - Exceptional circumstances claimed by petitioner - Order challenged in revision. [Para 1-5]

Interpretation of Section 148 of the NI Act - The word "may" construed as "shall" for the purpose of directing the accused to deposit a minimum of 20% of the compensation/fine amount pending appeal - Purpose of the amendment in Section 148 of the NI Act emphasized. [Para 7]

Exemption from deposit - Appellate Court's discretion to exempt the accused from depositing 20% of the compensation amount in exceptional cases - Requirement to record reasons for such exemption - Similar plea not raised before the Appellate Court - Reliance on the case of Jamboo Bhandari for the principle that when an accused applies for suspension of sentence without any condition, the Court must consider whether the case falls into an exception. [Para 11-12]

Petition under Section 482 CrPC – Seeking action based on representation dated 10.03.2022 (Annexure P3) and enquiry report dated 12.08.2022 (Annexure P4) against the accused for posting vulgar and threatening comments on petitioner's family photographs on Facebook – Allegation of police inaction due to political influence. [Para 1]

FIR No. 154 of 2021 – Background of the case involving attack on petitioner's house and subsequent vulgar Facebook comments by one of the accused – Police filed a cancellation report, not accepted by Area Magistrate – Inquiry report recommended action under Section 66 of the IT Act, later altered due to legal interpretations. [Para 2]

Maintainability of the Petition – Respondent No.4 challenged the petition's maintainability citing Supreme Court precedents – High Court agreed, emphasizing the alternative remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC for grievances regarding FIR registration and investigation. [Paras 3-4]

Legal Precedents and Alternative Remedy – Reference to Sakiri Vasu vs. State of UP and others, and Radha Krishna Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh – High Court’s discretion in writ jurisdiction and the principle of not entertaining petitions when effective alternative remedies exist. [Paras 5-7]

Disposal of Petition – High Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy under Section 156 or Section 200 CrPC, as the case did not involve breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of legislation. [Para 9]

Civil Revision – Setting aside of order – Petitioner seeks to set aside the order of the trial Court dismissing the application to summon the Branch Manager of the respondent Bank along with relevant records – Dispute arises from the petitioner's credit facility and non-payment of insurance premium – Trial Court's dismissal of the application found erroneous – Petitioner allowed to summon the concerned Bank official along with specific documents in the interest of justice – No notice required to be issued to the respondent at this stage. [Para 1-9]

Anticipatory Bail Petition – Cheating and Fraud Allegations – Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in FIR No.28, dated 10.03.2023, registered under Sections 406, 420, 34 IPC at Police Station Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, concerning allegations of cheating and fraud in a failed matrimonial alliance. [Para 1]

Background of the Case – Complainant Sonia alleges fraudulent conduct by the petitioner and others in a planned marriage, involving financial transactions totaling Rs. 26,13,400/- under the pretext of sending her abroad post-marriage. [Paras 2-4]

Petitioner’s Role and Arguments – The petitioner, wife of main accused Dilwar Ram, alleged to have played a significant role in the conspiracy and financial transactions. Petitioner’s counsel argues her non-involvement in financial dealings and false implication. [Paras 3, 4]

State’s and Complainant’s Contention – Emphasizes the active participation of the petitioner in the fraud, supported by the confessional statement of co-accused Dilwar Ram and recovery of items given as gifts for the marriage. Argues against the grant of anticipatory bail. [Para 4]

Legal Principles Applied – Anticipatory Bail Considerations – Reference to Supreme Court’s judgment in Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr., emphasizing the consideration of prima facie case over the requirement of custodial interrogation for granting anticipatory bail. [Paras 5-6]

Decision – Petition dismissed due to the prima facie establishment of the offence and the necessity of the petitioner’s custodial interrogation for further investigation. [Paras 7-8]

Observations for Trial Court – Clarification that observations made in the anticipatory bail petition are solely for decision-making purposes and should not influence the trial. [Para 9]

Bail Petitions in FIR No.437 – Assault and Robbery – Petitions filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No.437 registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 307, 365, 379-B, 427, 506, 120-B IPC, and Section 25 of Arms Act. [Para 1]

FIR Details – Assault and Snatching Incident – FIR based on a complaint by Sohail, alleging assault by 20-30 persons including petitioners, resulting in injuries and snatching of ₹60,000. Incident occurred around 02:00 AM; assailants armed with rods and dandas, with shots fired. [Para 2]

Investigation and Arrests – Arrest of co-accused and recovery of crime-related items. Shots fired by co-accused Ashok and petitioner Jaihind @ Jaihind Bhadana. MLR of complainant indicated four injuries, including a grievous one. [Para 3]

Petitioners' Defense – False Implication and Questionable FIR – Argued that petitioners falsely implicated; questioned the number of injuries relative to the alleged assault by many; highlighted complainant's alcohol influence and absence of firearm injury for Section 307 IPC. [Para 4]

State and Complainant's Objection – Opposed bail citing the serious nature of injuries and pending witness statements. [Para 5]

Decision – Noted suspicious circumstances, including time and place of the incident, and the nature of injuries. Granted bail to petitioners considering filed challan and expected trial duration. [Paras 6-8]

Decision – Bail granted to petitioners Deepak and Jaihind @ Jaihind Bhadana under specific conditions set by the court. [Para 8]

Protection for Live-in Couples - Constitutional Right - Petitioners in a live-in relationship seeking protection for their life and liberty under Article 226 of the Constitution - Emphasis on the constitutional right to life and liberty, which includes the right to live with a partner of one’s choice, whether in a formal marriage or a live-in relationship. [Para 10, 14]

Previous Legal Precedents Cited - Reliance on past judgments from the same court recognizing and granting protection to individuals in live-in relationships, irrespective of the formal marital status of the parties involved. [Paras 3, 4, 5]

Representation to Police for Threat Assessment - Direction to respondent no.2 (Police) to consider the representation of the petitioners regarding their threat perception and take appropriate action as per law. [Para 6, 15]

Legal Protection Irrespective of Marital Status - Court's stance on providing protection without delving into the legality of the relationship, focusing on the immediate need to safeguard life and liberty. [Para 11, 13, 14]

Court's Discretion in Granting Protection - The court's decision to grant protection based on prima facie satisfaction of threat to petitioners, without commenting on the legality of their relationship or precluding legal action against them for any unlawful activities. [Para 14, 17]

Decision: Petition disposed of with directions to respondent no.2 to assess the threat perception to the petitioners and take appropriate action in accordance with the law. The court’s order does not prevent legal actions against the petitioners if warranted by their conduct. [Para 15, 17]