Tenancy Law - Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement & Misuse – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act S.13 – Basement let for storage used as shop; misuse led to resumption order; landlords required basement for storage/general store; tenant’s objections of res judicata & alternative accommodation rejected – Eviction upheld; revision dismissed [Paras 7-20].

Change of User – Basement leased exclusively for storage of crockery (clause in rent agreement) – Tenant admitted sale activity since 1981 – Misuse contrary to lease terms and without landlord’s written consent – Estate Officer passed resumption order; appeal dismissed; change of user proved – Eviction justified [Paras 8-9].

Impairment of Value/Utility – Tenant’s continued misuse led to cancellation of lease and jeopardised landlords’ title – Held: Such misuse materially impairs value and utility of premises – Eviction warranted to protect landlord’s ownership [Paras 8-10].

Bona Fide Requirement – Landlord best judge of need – Earlier petition withdrawn due to exemption notification (later quashed by SC) – Present need different (basement for storage, upper floor for small shop) – Availability of other floors irrelevant; tenant cannot dictate how landlord should adjust – Courts below rightly upheld necessity [Paras 11-18].

Res Judicata – Not applicable to petitions based on personal necessity, especially when earlier petition withdrawn owing to change of law/notification – Changed circumstances and modified need justified fresh petition [Paras 12-14].

Alternative Accommodation – Letting out of other portions during pendency does not defeat landlord’s claim – Law settled that even if landlord has other premises, tenant cannot compel him to utilise them – Tenant’s plea rejected [Paras 16-18].

Safeguard for Tenants – Court noted statutory protection under S.13(4) of the Act: if landlord after eviction does not occupy or misuses within 12 months, evicted tenant may seek restoration – Safeguard supports genuineness of need [Para 20].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Eviction order maintained – Tenant directed to vacate premises as per orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority [Para 20].

Murder of SI during patrol – Common intention – Section 34 IPC not attracted as appellant apprehended before firing – No recovery/no overt act – SC/ST Act s.3(2)(v) and Arms Act s.27 not made out – Entire conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted and released [Paras 39–42].

Criminal Law – Common intention – Section 34 IPC – Appellant apprehended before firing – Common intention not attracted – Evidence showed appellant was caught by police before co-accused opened fire – Use of weapons by others occurred after appellant had been separated upon arrest – Held: Section 34 IPC not attracted against appellant [Paras 39–41].

SC/ST Act – Section 3(2)(v) – Abuse by caste name not attributable to appellant – No ingredients made out – Where abusive words and firing were by others after appellant’s apprehension and no overt act by appellant is established, offence under Section 3(2)(v) not made out – Held accordingly [Para 40].

Arms Act – Section 27 – Non-recovery of weapon from appellant – No evidence of use/possession – Ingredients not satisfied – Conviction under Section 27 unsustainable [Para 40].

Assault on public servant – IPC Sections 353/334/332 – No overt act by appellant – Appellant in custody at time of firing – Ingredients not met – Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 40–41].

Evidence – FIR vis-à-vis deposition – Sections 145 & 157, Evidence Act – Prior statements can be used for contradiction/corroboration where attention drawn in cross-examination – Court rejected contention that there was no confrontation with FIR statements, finding compliance with Sections 145/157 on facts [Paras 36–38, 32].

Medical Evidence – Post-mortem – Firearm injury to nose/cranial cavity – Cause of death: haemorrhagic shock – Medical opinion consistent with ocular account of shooting by others – Does not connect appellant absent common intention/overt act [Paras 15–16].

Disposition – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges and to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 41–42].

Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – IPC S.302; Evidence Act S.106 – Wife killed in matrimonial home; deceased’s blood on accused’s shirt; prior ill-treatment proved – No explanation by accused – Conviction upheld; sentence of “life for remainder of natural life” modified to simple life imprisonment with fine.

Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Section 302 IPC – Wife killed in matrimonial home – Bloodstains of deceased on accused’s shirt – Ill-treatment history established – Accused offered no explanation under S.106 Evidence Act – Chain of circumstances complete – Conviction upheld; sentence modified [Paras 42-56].

Homicidal Death – Medical & Forensic Evidence – PW4 doctor found multiple incised/chop wounds on neck, head, lung injury; cause of death: shock and haemorrhage – Fetus of 4–5 months present – Axe recovered at spot; opinion that injuries possible by axe – CA report showed deceased’s blood group “B” on accused’s shirt – Homicidal death proved [Paras 13-16, 30, 52].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Deceased residing only with accused – Prior ill-treatment and counselling records proved – Neighbours (PWs 5, 8, 9) heard quarrels and saw accused fleeing – Bloodstains in house and on accused’s clothes – No plausible explanation by accused – Circumstances unerringly point to guilt [Paras 20-27, 42-57].

Burden of Proof – Section 106 Evidence Act – Offence committed inside privacy of matrimonial home – Burden on accused to explain circumstances of wife’s death – No explanation offered – Failure provides additional link in chain – Reliance on Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [Paras 46-50].

Defence – Plea of false implication and alleged affair of deceased – Unsupported by evidence – Defence witnesses (father and villager) corroborated prosecution on accused’s violent conduct – No reason for false implication [Paras 39-41, 54].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment “for remainder of natural life” – Trial court’s direction modified – Following Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) 7 SCC 1, such power vests only in High Courts/Supreme Court – Sentence altered to simple life imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000; in default, two years’ RI [Paras 57-59].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld – Sentence modified: life imprisonment (not “for remainder of life”) + fine Rs.50,000; default 2 years’ RI – Appeal disposed [Paras 59-60].

Quick Capsule – Essential Commodities Act – Wheat hoarding – Recovery from shop doubtful, seizure memo silent on place, no independent witnesses – Defence evidence of farmers storing wheat outside shop credible – Presumption under Section 10-C rebutted – Conviction set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 14–28].

ECA – Licensing restriction – Clause 3, U.P. Foodgrains Order – Any person storing ≥5 quintals deemed dealer unless rebutted – Prosecution alleged appellant stored 100 quintals inside shop – Defence showed wheat belonged to DW-1 & DW-2 farmers, kept temporarily outside shop with mandi receipts – Trial Court wrongly rejected evidence for not knowing accused – High Court held such reasoning flawed – Deeming presumption rebutted [Paras 12–13, 23–25].

Search and seizure – Section 100 CrPC – Compliance mandatory – Officer must call independent witnesses and prepare seizure list specifying place – Here, Ext. Ka-1 & Ka-2 lacked details of search site, no independent witnesses present – Trial Court failed to assess compliance – Held: serious irregularity prejudicing accused [Paras 14–20, 25].

Evidence – PW-1 ARO sole witness – His testimony showed seizure but did not specify whether wheat inside or outside shop – Recovery memo deficient – Defence evidence unrebutted – Prosecution case left doubtful [Paras 15–17].

Section 294 CrPC – Admission of genuineness of documents – Appellant’s counsel admitted prosecution documents – Held: such admission only makes documents admissible but cannot cure substantive gaps in proving lawful search and seizure – Division Bench ruling in Saddiq v. State of U.P., 1981 CrLJ 379 (All) applied [Paras 26–27].

Reverse burden – Section 10-C ECA – Burden shifts once prosecution proves lawful seizure of excess stock – Here, prosecution failed to establish lawful seizure under Clause 14 and Section 100 CrPC – Hence reverse burden never triggered – Appellant not liable [Paras 22–25].

Case law – Applied Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1262 (non-compliance of search provisions impacts evidentiary weight) – Saddiq v. State of U.P. (1981 CrLJ 379) on Section 294 documents – Both weighed in favour of appellant [Paras 21, 26].

Benefit of doubt – Serious lacunae in prosecution evidence, credible defence version supported by records – Trial Court erred in presuming guilt – Appellant entitled to acquittal [Paras 25–28].

Disposition – Criminal appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence dated 10.04.1987 under Section 7 ECA set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged subject to fresh compliance under Section 437A CrPC [Paras 29–31].

Agreement to sell (27.09.2005) – ₹15 lakh earnest – suit for double earnest – Money claim enforceable in personam; Clause 10 confers exclusive Amritsar jurisdiction – Panchkula court lacked jurisdiction – S.16(c) Specific Relief Act: purchaser failed to prove continuous readiness/financial capacity; NOC sought for nominees; no extension sought – Regular Second Appeal allowed; suit dismissed with costs.

Agreement to Sell – Refund of Earnest Money – Section 16(c) SRA – Plaintiff Failed to Prove Readiness/Willingness – Decree Reversed – Purchaser paid ₹15 lakh earnest but never demonstrated financial capacity to pay balance ₹1.09 crore; no steps taken for nearly 3 years; application for NOC filed in names of third parties; no request for extension under Clause 6 – Held: statutory burden under Section 16(c) not met; conduct belied readiness; refund decree unsustainable [Paras 20-27, 33].

Civil Procedure – Territorial Jurisdiction – Sections 16 & 20 CPC – Exclusive Amritsar Court Clause – Suit Not Maintainable at Panchkula – Relief sought was refund of money, enforceable by personal obedience; agreement executed at Amritsar; defendant resided at Amritsar; Clause 10 conferred jurisdiction on Amritsar Courts – Held: Panchkula Court lacked jurisdiction; concurrent findings set aside [Paras 12-19].

Contract Law – Default Clauses – Clause 9 of Agreement – Consequences of Purchaser’s Breach – Agreement stipulated forfeiture of earnest if purchaser defaulted; double refund if seller defaulted – Purchaser’s delay, absence of readiness, and misuse of signed blank forms for NOC in others’ names amounted to backing out; hence, earnest money liable to forfeiture [Paras 23-25, 31].

Evidence – Financial Capacity – Proof Required – Bank and income-tax records established plaintiff’s limited income (~₹1.3 lakh annually); lacked means to pay balance consideration – Mere presence before Sub-Registrar insufficient – Findings of courts below contrary to settled law in Umabai v. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan (SC) and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha (SC) – burden wrongly shifted to defendant [Paras 27-29].

Decision – Regular Second Appeal Allowed – Judgments of courts below set aside – Plaintiff’s suit dismissed with costs throughout [Paras 34].

Specific Performance – Section 16(c) SRA – Subsequent Purchaser’s Right to Contest Readiness/Willingness – Remand Ordered – Trial Court decreed the suit; First Appellate Court affirmed without deciding Issue No.1 on plaintiffs’ readiness and willingness – Held: In light of Kadupugotla Varalakshmi, the plea of lack of readiness/willingness under Section 16(c) is open to any defendant, including subsequent purchasers; absence of a clear appellate finding on readiness/willingness vitiates the decision – First Appellate Court’s decree set aside; matter remanded to decide readiness/willingness on existing evidence within six months [Paras 15-19].

Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell (09.01.2007) – Presence before Sub-Registrar & Legal Notices – Evidentiary Matrix – Plaintiffs asserted presence on 14.05.2007 and 04.06.2007 with balance consideration and issued legal notices dated 15.05.2007 and 26.05.2007; defendant-vendor relied on affidavit dated 14.05.2007 (Ex.D-1) to show her own readiness and subsequent registered sale dated 30.07.2007 – Trial Court referenced these materials but decreed mainly because of subsequent sale to vendor’s close relatives – Appellate Court did not undertake an independent readiness/willingness analysis – Necessitates remand for specific findings on Issue No.1 [Paras 3-4, 13-14, 18-19].

Property Law – Bona Fide Purchaser Without Notice – Close Relationship as a Circumstance – Subsequent purchasers were nephews of the vendor; courts below viewed relationship as relevant to notice – In second appeal, since readiness/willingness finding is foundational under Section 16(c), bona fides of purchasers to be assessed in that frame after readiness/willingness is determined – Issue kept open on remand [Paras 7, 11, 14, 18-19].

Appellate Practice – Duty to Return Findings – Where the decree of specific performance turns on Section 16(c), the First Appellate Court must record a clear finding on continuous readiness and willingness – Mere existence of a subsequent sale cannot substitute for this mandatory inquiry – Failure warrants setting aside and remand [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Regular Second Appeals Allowed – First Appellate Court’s judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 set aside – Matter remanded to First Appellate Court to re-hear parties and deliver a fresh decision specifically determining plaintiffs’ readiness and willingness on the existing record, to be concluded within six months – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 18-20].

Contempt of Court – Limitation – Petition filed beyond one year – Writ Court had directed respondents to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from 08.12.2021 – Contempt petition filed only in 2025 – Held: Barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act – No exceptional circumstances to invoke inherent powers under Article 215 of the Constitution – Petition dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 1–8, 25–29]

High Courts – Inherent Power under Article 215 – Scope and Limits – Though Article 215 grants High Courts power to punish for contempt, such power must be harmoniously read with the statutory limitation under Section 20 – Held: High Courts cannot routinely entertain contempt petitions beyond one year – Exception must be based on extraordinary injustice or public interest – No such case made out here [Paras 10, 19–29]

Contempt Law – Judicial Precedents – Court relies on multiple Supreme Court and High Court judgments including Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and Maheshwar Peri v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad – Held: Statutory limitation period under Contempt of Courts Act cannot be diluted by invoking general constitutional powers, except in rare and deserving circumstances [Paras 21, 26–28]

Decision: Contempt Petition dismissed – Held barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act – No case made for exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

Proclaimed Person – Quashment – BNSS S.528; CrPC S.82(2); NI Act S.138 – Non-service at correct address; cumulative compliance under S.82(2) mandatory – Proclamation dated 21-09-2023 quashed conditionally (surrender by 30-09-2025; Rs 10,000 costs; bail on bonds) – Petition allowed; non-compliance to entail dismissal.

Proclaimed Person—Quashment—Section 528 BNSS, Section 82(2) CrPC, Section 138 NI Act—Proclamation set aside subject to surrender and costs—Non-service due to incorrect address; mandatory cumulative compliance with Section 82(2) CrPC emphasized; petitioner ready to join—Held: Impugned proclamation order quashed subject to surrender by 30.09.2025 and payment of Rs.10,000; bail on bonds and conditions; failure to comply: petition deemed dismissed [Paras 5, 7-9].

Service of Process—Incorrect Address—Zimni orders—Proclaimed Person—Where the complainant did not furnish the correct address and the accused had shifted residence, non-appearance not wilful or deliberate—Process (summons/bailable warrants/warrants) not received; declaration as proclaimed person unsustainable—Quashment warranted to secure presence and expedite trial [Paras 2-3, 6-8].

Criminal Procedure—Section 82(2) CrPC—Mandatory Cumulative Compliance—Court reiterates that the steps under Section 82(2) CrPC must be complied with cumulatively, not alternatively; failure vitiates proclamation proceedings—Reliance placed on Gurbir Singh Mundi v. State of Punjab (P&H, 16.12.2021) [Para 5].

Purpose of Proclamation—Securing Presence, Not Punishment—Objective is to compel appearance and advance adjudication; where the accused shows readiness to join and reasons for absence are justified, setting aside proclamation with conditions furthers the ends of justice [Paras 6-8].

Conditional Relief—Surrender, Costs, Bail & Undertakings—Proclamation order dated 21.09.2023 set aside subject to surrender by 30.09.2025; costs of Rs.10,000 to complainant (R-2); on furnishing bail/surety bonds, release on bail; undertake to appear on all dates; not to leave India without leave; trial court free to impose additional conditions—Non-compliance results in petition being deemed dismissed [Para 8-9].

Decision: Petition allowed; proclamation order dated 21.09.2023 quashed subject to conditions—Surrender by 30.09.2025; pay Rs.10,000 costs to R-2; bail on bonds; affidavit undertaking to appear; do not leave country without permission; trial court may impose further conditions; non-adherence will deem petition dismissed [Paras 8-9].

Cognizance – Closure report – Magistrate relying on complainant’s statement and affidavit – Error in law – Matter should have been treated as complaint under s.190(1)(a) CrPC – Impugned order set aside; liberty to proceed under Chapter XV CrPC [Paras 12-16, 23-24].

Cognizance – Scope of Magistrate’s power – Magistrate not bound by investigating officer’s conclusion; may accept closure, order further investigation, or disagree and take cognizance under s.190(1)(b) – However, if relying on complainant’s evidence, must treat case as complaint under Chapter XV CrPC [Paras 12-14, 20-22].

Protest Petition – Nature – Judicially evolved concept; though not in CrPC, recognized by courts to safeguard victim’s participation – May be treated as complaint only if it satisfies s.2(d) CrPC and procedure under ss.200, 202 followed – Every protest petition need not be treated as complaint [Paras 18-21].

Trial Court Error – Magistrate misdirected in law by taking cognizance under s.190(1)(b) while relying on affidavit and statement of complainant – Proper course was to proceed as private complaint under Chapter XV – Impugned order set aside [Paras 23-24].