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 - Maharashtra Project Affected Persons (Rehabilitation) Act - Unregistered Sale Agreement – Applicability of Section 53A T.P. Act – No Protection to Possession – Defendant relied on an unregistered agreement to claim possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act – Held: Due to the statutory requirement of registration under Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act, an unregistered agreement has no effect for the purposes of Section 53A – Defendant cannot resist possession claim of true owner [Paras 4, 5, 8, 9].

Project-Affected Land – Sale Prohibited Under 1999 Act – Non-execution of Sale Deed Justified – Defendant contended that prohibition under Section 12 of the 1999 Act prevented sale – Court held that statutory prohibition did exist but did not change the outcome as possession claim under Section 53A failed due to non-registration [Paras 2, 8, 10].

Readiness and Willingness – Irrelevant Where Section 53A Inapplicable – Defendant claimed to be ready and willing to perform her part of the contract – Held: Even if such readiness existed, without registration, Section 53A is inapplicable – Appeal fails irrespective of readiness [Paras 5, 10].

Substantial Question of Law – Must Impact Final Outcome – Framed questions, even if answered in favour of appellant, do not alter decree – Held: Substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC must affect final outcome – No such question arises here – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 10, 11, 13].

Additional Evidence on Appeal – Irrelevant to Dispositive Issues – Applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking to produce certificate and government resolution rejected – Held: Even if accepted, they wouldn’t change result – Additional evidence not relevant to decide appeal [Paras 7, 12].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Questions framed not substantial – Possession rightly decreed in favour of title-holder plaintiff – Pending suit for specific performance to be decided independently [Paras 13, 14].

Limitation - Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Delay in Filing Appeal – Applicability of Section 13(1-A) of Commercial Courts Act – Appeal Time-barred – The appellants filed appeals against the judgment of the Single Judge dated 31.07.2023 with a delay of 55 days beyond the statutory 60-day period under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act – Held: Delay not condonable unless sufficient cause shown under Section 5 of the Limitation Act – Delay unjustified in facts of case [Paras 3, 8, 12, 42].

Re-Filing of Appeals – Delay of 226 Days – Abuse of Process – Appeals refiled only after dismissal of related SLPs by the Supreme Court – No steps taken to remove defects or notify court and respondents – Held: Delay deliberate, not inadvertent – Bonafides lacking – Condonation denied [Paras 15–21, 32–38].

Bona Fides and Judicial Discretion – Condonation of Delay – Leniency Not Warranted – Court held that discretion under Section 5 is not a license for strategic delay – Emphasized need for honesty and diligence in pursuing remedies – Factual matrix revealed calculated gamble by appellants – Delay fatal [Paras 24–30, 33–35].

Conduct of Litigants – Suppression of Facts and Fence-Sitting – Delay Not Innocuous – Appellants failed to disclose filing of their appeals during ongoing hearing of related appeals by respondents – Continued participating without disclosure before Division Bench or Supreme Court – Conduct considered egregious and manipulative [Paras 14, 23, 31, 36–39].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Delay Not Condoned – In absence of sufficient cause for delay in filing and re-filing, and in light of mala fide conduct, applications for condonation of delay dismissed – Consequently, the appeals also dismissed without adjudication on merits [Paras 42–43].

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].

Service Law - Termination – Loss of Lien under Standing Orders – Clause 19(ii) Invoked – Termination Upheld – Petitioner, a confirmed workman, remained absent unauthorisedly from 01.10.1990 and was struck off from rolls on 26/28.02.1991 under Clause 19(ii) of HAL Standing Orders – Held: Management had two procedural options – either initiate disciplinary enquiry under Clause 26/27 or proceed under Clause 19(ii) – Show-cause notices were served, but petitioner failed to respond satisfactorily – Clause 19(ii) validly invoked, termination upheld [Paras 3–7, 9–10, 24].

Nature of Absence – Treated as Abandonment, Not Termination – Distinction Explained – Court accepted that continuous unauthorized absence without leave or communication amounts to abandonment – Held: Such abandonment does not constitute 'retrenchment' and does not require full-fledged disciplinary enquiry – Standing Orders permit automatic cessation on factual absence [Paras 16–18].

Natural Justice – Minimum Compliance Required Even Under Standing Orders – Opportunity Provided – Show-cause notices and registered letters sent to petitioner fulfilled requirement of opportunity – Held: Principles of natural justice read into Clause 19(ii); issuance of notice is sufficient even without full enquiry [Paras 18–20].

Postal Proof – Under Postal Certificate – Not Sufficient Evidence of Communication – Petitioner relied on UPCs (Under Postal Certificates) to claim communication of leave applications – Held: UPCs lack evidentiary value and are insufficient to prove dispatch or receipt – Cited Supreme Court precedent to reject such claims [Paras 21–22].

Delay and Laches – Writ Filed After 10 Years – Petition Dismissed on Delay Alone – Termination order issued in February 1991, writ filed in July 2001 – Held: Delay of over 10 years unexplained – Petition dismissed independently on ground of laches [Paras 5, 23–25].

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].

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].