Waqf Property – Jurisdiction of Civil Court in Execution Proceedings – Original Petition Allowed – The petitioners, as decree holders, sought execution of a decree allowing them management and possession of a mosque property. Following the formation of the Waqf Tribunal, respondents challenged the civil court's jurisdiction. Held: The Waqf Tribunal’s constitution does not nullify the jurisdiction of civil courts over execution proceedings for suits initiated before the Tribunal's establishment. Civil courts retain authority over execution unless explicitly barred, and jurisdiction granted through decree res judicata prevails over Tribunal jurisdiction arguments raised post-decree [Paras 12-14, 19-20].

Jurisdiction of Waqf Tribunal vs. Civil Court – Applicability of Section 85 Waqf Act – Under Section 85, civil courts are barred from adjudicating waqf disputes post-Tribunal constitution; however, the bar does not retroactively apply to suits filed before the Tribunal's creation. Citing the absence of provisions to transfer pending suits to the Tribunal, the Court held that suits already decreed by civil courts are valid for execution through the originating court [Paras 10-13].

Execution by Original Court – CPC Sections 37(b) and 38 – The Court emphasized that Section 37(b) CPC allows the original court to execute its decree despite jurisdictional changes post-decree. Here, the civil court’s competence under Section 38 CPC remains unaffected by the Tribunal’s subsequent jurisdiction over waqf disputes, and the decree’s execution continues legitimately [Paras 15-17].

Mutawalli Appointment and Party Impleadment – Interim Mutawalli appointment by the Waqf Board (respondent 14) during execution led to impleadment denial by the lower court. The Court reversed this, ruling that the interim Mutawalli, representing mosque administration, is necessary to uphold the execution’s efficacy under Section 146 CPC, validating his impleadment [Para 22].

Decision: The petition is allowed. Orders passed by the Executing Court rejecting jurisdiction and dismissing the impleadment application (Exts. P6 and P7) are set aside. The civil court is directed to proceed with execution within three months, acknowledging the continued jurisdiction established prior to the Waqf Tribunal’s constitution.
 

Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Burden of Proof – Chain of Circumstances Proved – The prosecution established circumstantial evidence including CCTV footage showing the accused with the deceased, the purchase of poisonous pesticides by the accused, and the medical cause of death by poisoning – Disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the motorcycle and mobile phone corroborated the prosecution case – Conviction upheld [Paras 10-30].

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility under Section 65-B, Indian Evidence Act – Procedural Requirements for Certification – Despite procedural defects in certifying CCTV footage under Section 65-B, corroborating evidence including witness testimony, chemical examination of recovered poison, and the accused’s disclosure statement proved incriminatory links – Procedural defect did not negate substantive evidence [Paras 40-45].

Mens Rea – Evidence of Intent – Use of Poison – Purchase of pesticide and forced administration inferred from circumstantial evidence and witness testimony – Motive established through the accused's grudge against the victim’s relative – Mens rea for murder upheld [Paras 50-60].

Post-mortem Report – Cause of Death by Poisoning – The medical examination confirmed organophosphate poisoning as the cause of death – No evidence of external injury ruled out forcible administration, yet circumstantial evidence and accused’s conduct established the act as murder [Paras 70-80].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court’s conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was upheld. The acquittal under Section 376 IPC and the SC/ST Act was not appealed by the State and thus attained finality.

Specific Performance – Limitation and Readiness to Perform – Appeal Dismissed - The appellants sought specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 02-11-1979 for land, contending that they were ready and willing to perform their part but were delayed due to procedural issues – Trial court dismissed the suit, finding the claim barred by limitation and observing that the plaintiff failed to act within the contractual time frame, delaying suit filing by over eight years – Held: The High Court affirmed the trial court's decision, noting that the limitation period under Article 54 of the Limitation Act began on the specified date for contract performance, and appellants failed to provide evidence of timely readiness – Accordingly, suit was time-barred [Paras 15-18].

Specific Relief – Alternative Remedy of Refund – Grant of Refund Ordered - Although specific performance was denied, the court granted an alternative relief for a refund of the advance payment – Citing Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, the court directed the defendants to refund Rs.20,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the agreement, as it constituted the advance payment made towards the sale – Held: Appeal dismissed with alternative relief for refund due to plaintiff's delay in fulfilling contractual obligations [Paras 27-30].

Time as Essence in Contracts – Intention of Parties and Reasonable Time for Performance - The court referenced Swarnam Ramachandran v. Aravacode Chakungal Jayapalan to emphasize that even if time is not expressly stipulated as essential in real estate agreements, performance within a reasonable period is expected – The delay by appellants in expressing readiness and fulfilling payment terms led the court to conclude they were not diligent in contract performance [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with alternative relief for refund of the advance amount plus interest.
 

Adoption Deed Registration – Applicability to Muslim Personal Law – Adoption Not Recognized – Refusal Upheld - The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, does not recognize adoption as a mode of filiation – Petitioners sought to register an adoption deed, which was refused citing lack of provision under the Registration Act, 1908, and the absence of enabling provisions for online registration in the case of Muslims – Court held: Adoption deeds are not compulsorily registrable under Sections 17 and 18 of the Registration Act – Refusal justified [Paras 11-12, 16].

Adoption Regulations Under J.J. Act, 2015 – Uniform Procedures for Adoption Across Religions - Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Adoption Regulations, 2017, adoption is governed by uniform procedures irrespective of religion – Petitioners directed to comply with these provisions rather than seeking registration under Muslim Personal Law – Registration of an adoption deed without following the regulations lacks legal sanctity [Paras 14-16, 19].

Role of Customary Practices in Adoption – Limited Recognition - The Court acknowledged that customs permitting adoption may have legal relevance if proven – However, without evidence of prevailing custom or compliance with statutory adoption procedures, adoption deeds executed outside the Juvenile Justice framework hold no legal value – Custom must be pleaded and proved before competent civil courts [Paras 8, 15-16].

Bar on Registering Adoption Deeds Without Legal Framework – Directions Issued to Registrars - Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu, directed to restrain registrars from registering any adoption deeds executed without compliance with mandatory statutory provisions, irrespective of the adopters’ religion – Circular to be issued to enforce this directive [Para 20].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioners Directed to Follow Adoption Regulations - Writ Petition dismissed for lack of merit – Petitioners permitted to proceed under Adoption Regulations, 2017, notified under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Registration of the adoption deed held futile and legally invalid [Paras 19-20].

Bail under NDPS Act – Intermediate Quantity – Applicability of Section 37 Rigors - The applicant, arrested with 46.23 grams of heroin, claimed that the contraband did not fall under "commercial quantity" and hence did not trigger Section 37’s stringent conditions of the NDPS Act – Court held that since the seized quantity was intermediate, the strictures of Section 37 were not applicable, making bail consideration favorable in this context [Paras 6-8, 13].

Previous Acquittal and Presumption of Innocence - Applicant had prior cases registered but was acquitted in one case (FIR No. 31 of 2022), with no conviction recorded in the other – Court reiterated that pending trial, the applicant enjoys the presumption of innocence, thus weakening the argument for continued custody solely based on past charges [Para 15].

Custodial Interrogation Not Required – Investigation Complete - Since the police had filed the final report and no further evidence was needed, the court observed that continued judicial custody would serve no additional purpose – Court noted that the applicant’s co-accused had also been granted bail on parity grounds [Paras 9-10, 16].

Bail Conditions – Prevention of Tampering and Assuring Appearance - Bail was granted under conditions including attendance at all hearings, no tampering with evidence, and prohibition on leaving India without court permission – Court directed compliance monitoring and allowed the state to petition if conditions were violated [Paras 20-23].

Decision: Bail application allowed. Applicant ordered to be released on personal bail bond of ₹50,000 with one surety, subject to conditions to ensure cooperation with judicial proceedings.

Criminal Law – Cheating and Criminal Conspiracy – Quashing of FIR – Financial Dispute – Abuse of Process – The FIR was registered on the complaint of Avtar Singh, alleging that petitioner Jagsir Singh Dhiman refused to return a sum of ₹9,50,000 arising from a business dispute in agricultural tool manufacturing – Petitioners contended that this was a civil dispute improperly pursued as a criminal case – Held: High Court quashed the FIR, finding that the essential ingredients for Sections 420 and 120-B IPC were lacking; case was a financial disagreement, not a criminal offense [Paras 1-3, 9-10].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Preventing Misuse of Judicial Process – High Court emphasized that Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a vital tool to prevent criminal proceedings from being used to settle civil disputes – Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that business or contractual conflicts without criminal elements should not proceed under criminal law – Held: Criminal proceedings should not be allowed to become tools of harassment; quashing justified to prevent misuse of the judicial process [Paras 6-8].

Decision: The petition is allowed, quashing FIR No.03 dated 15.01.2023 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sehna, District Barnala, and all subsequent proceedings [Paras 9-10].
 

Criminal Law – Proclamation Proceedings – Compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Proclamation Against Absconder – Procedural Requirements – Quashment of Proclamation – The petitioner challenged the proclamation order issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C., claiming it was not executed per mandatory requirements – It was argued that no public reading of the proclamation was conducted in a conspicuous place, nor was the proclamation served personally – Held: Non-compliance with Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C. renders the proclamation and subsequent orders illegal; proclamation quashed [Paras 2-9].

Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Mandatory Compliance – Personal Service and Public Reading – High Court highlighted the necessity for prior issuance of warrants and public reading of the proclamation in a visible place in the accused’s village or town as per Section 82 Cr.P.C. – In this case, only affixing of notices was done, without public reading or due diligence in personal service – Held: Non-fulfillment of these requirements invalidates the proclamation [Paras 6-8].

Bail – Allowance to Surrender and Conditional Bail Grant – Despite procedural lapses, the petitioner was instructed to surrender before the Trial Court within six weeks, with the Trial Court to consider bail upon surrender – Failure to comply would result in automatic dismissal of this petition [Para 10].

Decision:

The proclamation order dated 27.02.2024 is quashed. Petitioner allowed to surrender within six weeks and apply for bail. Non-compliance with the surrender directive will lead to automatic dismissal of this petition [Paras 9-11].

Eviction Suit – Nature of Possession – Usufructuary Mortgage vs. Lease Arrangement – The plaintiff filed for eviction and recovery of possession of agricultural land, claiming he allowed the defendant to cultivate the land temporarily under a lease-like arrangement, later terminated. The defendant argued a right to possession under an alleged usufructuary mortgage agreement. Held: Lower courts found no valid mortgage agreement, confirming the plaintiff's entitlement to recovery of possession. The High Court agreed, noting that the defendant’s claims were unsupported by documentary evidence, making eviction proper [Paras 6-7, 10].

Second Appeal – Scope of Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – The Court reiterated that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law, excluding review of factual findings by lower courts. Here, the appellant raised issues primarily factual in nature, involving interpretation of agreements and possession, without identifying any substantial question of law – Held: No substantial question of law arose, rendering the second appeal inadmissible [Paras 11-13].

Requirement for Pleading and Proof in Mortgage Claims – The defendant claimed rights under a possessory mortgage yet failed to produce evidence of a formal mortgage agreement. The Court held that in absence of documented mortgage terms, and given that the arrangement resembled a lease with a refundable deposit, the claim of usufructuary mortgage was legally unsustainable. The plaintiff’s clear ownership rights thus prevailed over the defendant's possession claim [Paras 14-16].

Decision – The second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, confirming the judgments of the trial and first appellate courts favoring the plaintiff's right to evict and regain possession. No costs were awarded.
 

Bail Application – Principle of Bail as a Rule, Jail as an Exception – The Court reiterated the principle that bail should be the norm and jail the exception, especially when an accused has been in prolonged custody. The petitioner has been detained since September 2020, and given the stage of the trial and lack of criminal antecedents, extended custody was deemed unwarranted [Paras 40-45].

Consideration of Parity in Bail – The petitioner claimed parity as a ground for bail, highlighting that 20 out of 28 co-accused in the same incident had already been granted bail, including others declared proclaimed offenders. The Court found this an important factor supporting the petitioner’s release on bail [Paras 50-55].

Assessment of Prima Facie Case for Bail – Without delving into the merits, the Court assessed whether continuous detention served any further purpose, finding that prolonged custody with slow trial progress undermines the petitioner’s right to liberty under Article 21. The Court noted that the petitioner’s alleged presence during the riot, evidenced by CCTV footage, was a matter for trial and did not preclude bail at this stage [Paras 30-35, 47].

Conditions Imposed for Bail – The petitioner was directed to be released on bail, with conditions including surrendering his passport, reporting regularly to the Investigating Officer, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence, contacting witnesses, and changing address without notification – Held: The petitioner to be released on regular bail on conditions designed to mitigate risk of flight and interference with the investigation [Paras 56-60].

Decision – The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions including a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety, periodic reporting, and restrictions on travel and communication with witnesses.