Electricity Law - Entitlement to Electricity Connection - Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 -Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus directing the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) to release an electricity connection—Dispute between brothers—Petitioner in occupation of premises but existing connection disconnected due to property dispute—Held that Section 43 of the Electricity Act mandates supply of electricity to any “occupier” of the premises—Term “lawful” is not defined in the Act—Licensee under Indian Easements Act, 1882 is in lawful possession—Petition allowed—PSPCL directed to release electricity connection to petitioner​​.

Real Estate Law - Licensee's Right to Utilities -Petitioner’s contention supported by various documents (Voter I-card, Aadhar Card, Passport) reflecting his long-term residence—PSPCL’s refusal based on petitioner not being a lawful owner—Held that lawful possession under Indian Easements Act includes licensees—Petitioner’s occupancy as licensee not disputed—Interpreting "occupier" to include those in possession through legal agreements—Preventing misuse by disgruntled landlords—Electricity connection to be released as per Section 43, Electricity Act, 2003​​.

Decision:Writ petition allowed—Respondents directed to release the electricity connection within 30 days—PSPCL’s interpretation requiring proof of ownership or legal documentation contrary to legislative intent—Connection to be provided upon compliance with other statutory requirements by the petitioner​​.

Criminal Law - Probation of Offenders – Section 360 CrPC – Sections 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Revision against conviction and sentence – Offenses not heinous or grievous – Petitioner a first-time offender, nearly 50 years old with family responsibilities – Sentence modified to probation for good conduct – Revision partly allowed. [Paras 1-23]

Sentencing Principles – Reformative vs. Punitive Approach – Analysis – Law should extend indulgence to first-time offenders – Purpose of sentencing includes reformative aspect – Not all offenses require punitive confinement – Section 360 CrPC and the Probation of Offenders Act aim to offer a chance for reform without compromising law's deterrent effect. [Paras 15-20]

Eligibility for Probation – Criteria – Person over 21 years convicted of offenses punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less, with no previous convictions, eligible for probation – Petitioner convicted under Sections 323 and 325 IPC meets criteria – Financial hardship for petitioner’s family considered. [Paras 19-20]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court and High Court decisions – Courts emphasize reformation over retribution for first-time offenders – Probation should be granted unless offender is incorrigible and beyond reform. [Para 17]

Decision – Sentence Modified to Probation – Conviction upheld but sentence modified – Petitioner released on probation for good conduct for one year on furnishing bail bonds – Ensures balance between legal deterrence and opportunity for reform. [Para 23]

Negotiable Instruments Act - Limitation for Recovery of Debt - Acknowledgment of Debt – Petition for quashing of complaint and summoning orders under Section 138 of the NI Act – Cheque issued beyond three years of taking loan – Held, acknowledgment of debt can renew the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act – Complaint need not include finer details and evidence – Petition dismissed.

Distinction between Acknowledgment and Promise – Analysis – Section 18 of the Limitation Act vs. Section 25(3) of the Contract Act – Acknowledgment under Section 18 must be within the limitation period, while a promise under Section 25(3) can renew the limitation even for a time-barred debt – Both sections highlight that the right to receive payment never dies, but the remedy may be renewed under certain circumstances.

Judicial Precedents – Legal Principles – Reliance on various judgments highlighting that an acknowledgment or promise can renew the period of limitation – Court cannot quash complaints at the threshold on grounds requiring evidence – Matters of limitation involve mixed questions of law and facts to be decided at trial.

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Complaint and summoning orders under Section 138 of the NI Act upheld – Cheque issued for an acknowledged debt, even if time-barred, attracts the provisions of Section 138 – No ground for invoking inherent powers of High Court to quash the complaint.

Constitutional Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Article 226 -Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of RERA— Petitioner's contention that the delegation of powers by the RERA to the Adjudicating Officer is beyond jurisdiction— Held that Section 81 of the Act empowers the RERA to delegate any of its powers except for framing regulations under Section 85— Such delegation is within jurisdiction— Financial inability to deposit the amount as required under Section 43(5) of the Act cannot be considered genuine hardship for invoking Article 226— Scheme of the Act aims to safeguard home buyers against large developers— Writ petitions dismissed​​.

Real Estate Law - Pre-deposit Requirement for Appeal -Petitioner's argument against the pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal— Held that the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) is a necessary condition to safeguard home buyers— Financial incapacity not supported by adequate documentation— Argument for waiver of pre-deposit rejected— Petitioners directed to comply with statutory requirements before approaching the Tribunal​​.

Decision:Writ petitions under Article 226 challenging the orders of RERA dismissed— Petitioners directed to comply with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 43(5) of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, before filing appeals— Jurisdictional delegation by RERA to Adjudicating Officer upheld as per Section 81 of the Act​​.

Criminal Law - Probation for First-Time Offenders - Revision petition challenging the conviction, focusing on probation for a first-time offender. Petitioner nearly 50 years old, laborer with responsibilities, sought leniency. Held, the mandate of Section 360 Cr.P.C. and the Probation of Offenders Act emphasizes rehabilitation over punitive measures for non-heinous crimes. Petitioner released on probation for good conduct. Revision partly allowed. [Paras 17-20]

Sentencing - Reformative Theory - Emphasizes the reformative aspect of sentencing for first-time offenders to enable reintegration into society. Held, the objective is not only deterrent but also reformative, assessing the potential for reform. [Paras 17-20]

Decision - Sentence modified, petitioner released on probation. Court highlighted the need for a balanced approach considering social and psychological circumstances. Revision partly allowed. [Paras 17-20]

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR under Section 174-A IPC – Petition under Section 482 CrPC – FIR registered after petitioner declared proclaimed person in a Section 138 NI Act case – Petitioner settled the matter with complainant, who withdrew the complaint – Once proceedings under Section 138 NI Act withdrawn, FIR under Section 174-A IPC becomes unsustainable – Petition allowed, FIR quashed. [Paras 1-10]

Legal Principles – Effect of Settlement and Withdrawal – Analysis – Settlement between parties and withdrawal of Section 138 NI Act complaint nullify the basis for declaring petitioner proclaimed person – Continuation of FIR under Section 174-A IPC would be abuse of process – Case law supports quashing FIR in similar circumstances. [Paras 5-9]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Previous Decisions – Reliance on co-ordinate Bench judgments quashing FIR under Section 174-A IPC where Section 138 NI Act complaints were settled and withdrawn – Uniform application of legal principles ensures justice and prevents unnecessary litigation. [Paras 5-7]

Decision – Petition Allowed – FIR No. 86 dated 14.03.2020 under Section 174-A IPC quashed – Complainant not a necessary party for present petition as he withdrew the original complaint – Legal expenses and unnecessary litigation avoided. [Paras 10-11]

Criminal Law - Proclamation of Absconding Person - Compliance with Section 82 CrPC – Petition challenging orders declaring petitioner as proclaimed person under Section 82 CrPC – Proclamation issued with less than 30 days between publication and the date fixed – Subsequent adjournment to meet 30-day requirement not valid compliance – Petition allowed, orders set aside. [Paras 1-17]

Mandatory Compliance - Section 82 CrPC – Analysis – Law mandates a clear 30-day period between the publication of the proclamation and the date fixed for the accused's appearance – Court adjournment to fulfill the 30-day requirement not equivalent to statutory compliance – Proclamation deemed invalid if mandatory period not adhered to. [Paras 8-14]

Objective of Proclamation – Ensuring Accused's Appearance – Proclamation aims to secure the accused's presence for trial proceedings – Petitioner's appearance and compliance with bail requirements critical for the trial’s progression – Undertaking by petitioner to appear within 4 weeks and furnish bail bonds recognized. [Paras 15-16]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Orders dated 16.10.2017 and 03.11.2017 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, and 08.12.2018 by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, set aside – Petitioner directed to surrender and furnish bail bonds within 4 weeks – Cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with District Legal Service Authority, Gurugram – Petitioner's compliance to secure bail affirmed. [Para 17]

Employment Law – Termination During Probation – Misconduct Allegation – Appeal against the order of termination during probation. Held, termination based on unsatisfactory work and conduct during probation is neither stigmatic nor requires a detailed inquiry unless misconduct is specifically attributed. The appellant's termination, based on a "below average" ACR and dissatisfaction with his work, is valid under the statutory rules. Appeal dismissed. [Paras 12-14]

Probation Termination – Requirement of Inquiry – It is a settled law that no inquiry is required during probation unless specific misconduct is alleged. The termination order was simpliciter and within the probation terms. [Para 14]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The order of termination during probation is upheld as non-stigmatic and in accordance with the service rules. No merit found in the appeal, which is dismissed. [Para 15]

Criminal Law - Quashing of Complaint – Director and Manager Involvement – Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of complaint under Insecticides Act – Petitioners prosecuted as Director and Manager-cum-Godown Incharge of accused company – No specific averments in complaint showing their role in company’s business or quality control – Responsible Officer for Quality Control already named and proceeded against – Continuation of proceedings against petitioners would be abuse of process of Court – Petition allowed, complaint and summoning order quashed. [Paras 1-17]

Insecticides Act - Section 33 – Offences by Companies – Analysis – Section 33 imposes liability on persons in charge of or responsible for conduct of business at the time of offence – Petitioners not shown to have specific roles in quality control or business conduct – Responsible Officer for Quality Control explicitly named and proceeded against – No justification for vicarious liability on petitioners based on their positions alone. [Paras 10-17]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court and High Court decisions – Reliance on M/s Cheminova India Ltd. vs. State of Punjab and other relevant cases – Courts emphasize necessity of specific averments indicating direct responsibility for business conduct or quality control for vicarious liability – General allegations insufficient. [Para 11-14]

Decision – Quashing of Proceedings – Continuation of proceedings against petitioners deemed abuse of process – Complaint and summoning order set aside – Legal principles on vicarious liability reiterated, protecting individuals from unfounded prosecution based solely on their positions. [Para 17]