Civil Law - Interim Injunction – Co-sharer’s Possession – No Exclusive Possession Shown – Revision Petition Dismissed – The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming possession over agricultural land and sought interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC to restrain defendants from raising construction – Both courts below dismissed the injunction application holding that petitioner was merely a co-sharer and did not prove exclusive possession – The High Court held that interim injunction cannot be granted to a co-sharer unless exclusive possession is shown – Mere sowing of crop is insufficient where another co-sharer shows documents of possession such as electricity and water bills – Held: No error found in the concurrent findings; revision dismissed [Paras 2-6].

Exclusive Possession – Burden of Proof on Plaintiff – Observations Reaffirmed – The Court reiterated that a co-sharer must establish exclusive possession for seeking injunction – Defendant had placed material documents indicating physical possession and construction; plaintiff failed to rebut or show any contrary proof – Held: Plaintiff’s possession claims were unsubstantiated, rightly rejected by courts below [Paras 5-6].

Limited Interference under Article 227 – Scope of Revisional Powers – The High Court emphasised that interference under Article 227 is warranted only where the orders suffer from perversity or legal infirmity – Since both courts properly appreciated facts and law, the interference was declined – Held: No jurisdictional error found, petition dismissed [Paras 5-6].

Decision– Revision petition dismissed – Orders of Trial Court dated 05.10.2023 and First Appellate Court dated 16.09.2024 upheld – Pending applications also disposed of – Clarification made that observations herein are confined to the interim stage and do not affect the merits of the main suit [Paras 6-7].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Fraudulent Land Transaction – Quashing Rejected – Accused Nos. 1 and 2 sought quashing of FIR registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC – Allegations indicated creation of forged death certificates, fake Aadhar identity, manipulation of land records, and sale of land belonging to a deceased person’s heirs – Held: Offences disclosed prima facie material warranting investigation; continuation of proceedings justified despite pendency of civil suits [Paras 7-10].

Civil vs Criminal Liability – Dual Remedies Permissible – Petition Dismissed – Petitioners contended the dispute was purely civil arising out of property ownership – Court held existence of civil dispute does not bar criminal prosecution where ingredients of criminal offence are satisfied – Same facts can give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings – Held: Investigation into criminal conduct warranted, civil suits do not preclude prosecution [Paras 11-13].

Forgery and Public Record Manipulation – Serious Public Concern – Quashing Refused – Material indicated manipulation of public records in connivance with public officials including Sub-Registrar’s office – Forgery of identity and land records established prima facie offence affecting public trust in record-keeping – Held: Nature of crime extends beyond private grievance to public interest requiring full investigation [Paras 8-10, 13].

Pendency of Civil Suit – No Ground to Quash Criminal Case – Supreme Court Precedents Followed – Court relied on Priti Saraf v. State (NCT of Delhi), Punit Beriwala v. State of NCT of Delhi, Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy – Held: Pendency of civil suits or remedy under civil law not sufficient to quash FIR where prima facie criminal case exists [Para 12].

Role of Public Servants – Larger Conspiracy Alleged – Petitioners’ Role Integral – Allegations included collusion of accused with public servants in manipulating records and documents – Public servants facing proceedings having withdrawn earlier petitions – Held: Petitioners’ participation in alleged fraud merits investigation, quashing of FIR declined [Para 9-10].

Decision – Continuation of Criminal Investigation Upheld – Petitions Dismissed – Interim orders vacated – Held: Allegations indicated systematic fraud, not mere civil dispute; justice demands full investigation and potential prosecution [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law - Bail – Sections 8(c), 20(b), 22(c), 23(c), 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act – Conscious Possession Not Established – Bail Granted – The High Court allowed bail to the petitioner who was arrested after collecting a courier parcel containing 100 LSD blots, observing absence of evidence proving conscious possession and involvement in narcotics trafficking – Held: In absence of incriminating digital, financial, or forensic links, and considering inconsistencies in the prosecution case, twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act were satisfied; bail granted [Paras 1-18].

Conscious Possession – Mere Custody Not Sufficient – Knowledge of Contraband Not Proved – The Court noted petitioner was neither consignee nor sender, parcel was addressed to third party, and petitioner consistently claimed he was asked by a neighbour to collect the parcel – Held: Without proof of knowledge or dominion over contraband, conscious possession not established [Paras 5-13].

Confessional Statement under Section 67 – No Recovery Pursuant to Disclosure – Inadmissible without Corroboration – The Court held confessional statement under Section 67 NDPS Act is insufficient for conviction without substantive corroboration – Held: No recovery from petitioner pursuant to statement; reliance solely on Section 67 impermissible [Paras 10, 13].

Statutory Presumption under Section 54 NDPS Act – Rebuttable Where Conscious Possession Lacking – The Court held presumption of culpability under Section 54 not attracted in absence of conscious possession – Held: Prosecution failed to establish knowledge of contents, presumption rebutted [Paras 5-12].

Differential Role Compared to Co-Accused – No Connection with Drug Syndicate – Bail Justified – The Court differentiated petitioner’s limited role of collecting one parcel from active drug dealers from whom large quantities were recovered – Held: No link with wider drug syndicate established; bail warranted [Paras 6-9].

Satisfaction of Twin Conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act – No Likelihood of Re-Offending – Bail Granted – The Court noted petitioner had no criminal antecedents, cooperated with investigation, remained in custody for two years, and showed good conduct in jail – Held: Twin conditions under Section 37 satisfied; bail granted with conditions [Paras 14-18].

Decision – Bail Application Allowed – Petitioner Released on Bail – Court directed petitioner’s release on furnishing personal bond and surety with conditions including non-tampering with evidence, appearance before court, and residence verification [Paras 15-18].

Dishonour of Cheque – Lack of Authorization – Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act Set Aside – The accused issued a cheque in settlement of a failed property transaction where consideration was paid jointly by the complainant and another individual – The accused challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant alone could not prosecute without proper authorization – Held: As per established legal position, in cases where liability is jointly owed, a solitary payee must have authorization to prosecute under Section 138 – As the authorization was not marked in evidence, conviction not sustainable – Matter remanded to trial court with liberty to both parties to adduce additional evidence [Paras 5-7].

Joint Payee Complaint – Legal Requirement of Authorization – Remand Ordered – The Court held that a cheque can be issued in the name of a single person for discharge of joint liability provided there is authorization by other parties – Absence of valid proof of such authorization renders prosecution defective – Remand permitted to allow parties to produce relevant authorizations or evidence [Paras 6-7].

Interim Relief – Release from Custody – Considering Accused Undergoing Default Sentence – Pending Re-trial – The Court directed immediate release of the petitioner from custody as he was serving default imprisonment for non-payment of compensation – Accused ordered to be released unless required in any other case [Para 7].

Limited Scope of Remand – No De Novo Trial Required – Additional Evidence Permitted – The Court clarified that while remanding, the trial court need not conduct a full retrial but should confine proceedings to permitting both sides to adduce further evidence on authorization before concluding the matter afresh [Para 7].

Civil Writ – Mandamus - Para-athlete Entitlement – Cash Award Under Government Orders – Rightfully Due Benefits Denied – The petitioner, a double upper limb amputee, represented India in various international para-swimming championships winning medals – Despite clear eligibility under GO dated 30.11.2013, the State failed to disburse ₹6,00,000/- – Held: The petitioner is entitled to the full amount, and short payment by the State is illegal and unjustified [Paras 3–10].

Disability Rights – Arbitrariness and Bureaucratic Apathy – Violation of Dignity and Equality – The State’s refusal to honour a decorated disabled sportsperson’s achievements despite policy mandates amounts to inhumane and arbitrary treatment – Held: State actions violate the letter and spirit of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and constitutional equality guarantees [Paras 4, 7, 12–14].

Association Suspension – Not a Valid Ground to Deny Benefits – Government Plea Rejected – The State argued petitioner’s association was suspended, hence full benefit could not be paid – Held: Cash awards are based on athlete’s performance, not association status – State cannot hide behind technicalities to deny rights [Para 11].

State’s Conduct – Model Litigant Principle – Cost Imposed on Officers Personally – For delay and denial of benefits, Court imposed exemplary costs of ₹2,00,000/- to be paid personally by erring government officials – Held: The State must act fairly and responsibly, particularly toward disabled citizens who achieve international glory [Paras 14–16].

Final Relief – Mandamus Issued – Amount Ordered to Be Paid With Penalty for Delay – Writ Petition Allowed – State directed to pay ₹1,26,000/- within 2 weeks, failing which ₹1,000/- per day to be paid until compliance – Officials liable for costs from personal funds [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Dismissed In Default for Non-Prosecution – Section 256 CrPC – Acquittal of Accused – Complaint Cannot Be Restored – Magistrate Lacked Jurisdiction - Complaint under Section 138 NI Act was dismissed in default due to complainant’s absence, and the accused was present – Held: This amounted to acquittal under Section 256(1) CrPC – The Magistrate has no power to restore such complaint – Impugned restoration order dated 24.07.2019 set aside [Paras 1-2, 5-8, 11-12].

Restoration of Complaint – Only Remedy is Appeal – Section 378 CrPC – No Revisional or 482 Petition Maintainable - Once a complaint is dismissed and accused acquitted under Section 256, complainant’s only remedy is to file an appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC – Restoration by Magistrate or via revision/482 petition is impermissible in law – Relied on precedents including Atul Sood, Mohd. Sakil, and Hardev Singh [Paras 7-10].

Terminology – “Discharge” in Magistrate’s Order – Interpreted as “Acquittal” – Legal Consequence Not Affected - Though the Magistrate used the word “discharged” in order dated 24.01.2018, Court held that in substance it amounted to “acquittal” – Substance prevails over form in such interpretation [Para 8].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh dated 24.07.2019 restoring the complaint quashed – Respondent-complainant may avail alternative remedies as per law [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Complaint under Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Petitioner apprehending arrest in complaint for unauthorized sale of nicotine-based e-cigarettes without valid license – Prosecution opposed maintainability citing proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC – Held: Petition maintainable under Section 482 BNSS as petitioner had challenged and quashed the proclamation order in separate petition – Anticipatory bail granted subject to compliance with BNSS conditions [Paras 1, 5-7].

Drugs and Cosmetics – Unauthorized Sale of Nicotine Products – During raid, petitioner found stocking and selling products labeled as containing nicotine without valid retail/wholesale license – Petitioner failed to produce valid drug license or reveal source of procurement – Offence prima facie under Sections 18(c) and 18-A of the Act made out – Bail granted without commenting on merits [Paras 4, 7].

Bail Conditions – Aadhaar-based Surety Verification – Court noted prevalent misuse and corruption in verifying sureties through local officials like Lambardars or Sarpanch – Directed Aadhaar verification via mAadhaar app as primary method – Identification through local bodies to be resorted only if Aadhaar is unavailable – Direction to Chief Secretaries and Registries to consider implementing Aadhaar-based verification in legal documents [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Anticipatory bail granted – Proclamation order already quashed – Aadhaar-based verification of sureties to be followed – All pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Civil Dispute Escalated to Criminal Litigation – Supreme Court Orders Executed – Conditional Bail Granted – Petitioners involved in property dispute culminating before Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 27400 of 2023 sought pre-arrest bail in cross criminal cases registered under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alleging mutual criminal trespass and violence after property possession was delivered pursuant to Supreme Court orders – Held: Pre-arrest bail granted to petitioners in Cr.P.Nos.5730/2025 and 5860/2025 as there was no prima facie evidence of direct involvement, but rejected for petitioner in Cr.P.No.5861/2025 (A1) in view of previous criminal antecedents, credible allegations of criminal conduct, and statements implicating him in engaging antisocial elements – Court considered the principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (2020) 5 SCC 1 regarding grant of anticipatory bail and the nature of allegations – Custodial interrogation held necessary for certain accused, pre-arrest bail allowed/disallowed accordingly [Paras 16-34].

Arbitration – Legal Heirs as Parties – Clause Permitting Continuation of Firm – Arbitration Agreement Extends – The partnership deed contained a clause (Clause 15) allowing continuation of business with legal heirs after a partner's death – Clause 16 permitted arbitration of disputes – Held: Legal heirs are entitled to invoke arbitration despite absence of reconstitution deed – Dispute maintainable under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act [Paras 3-5, 14, 33-35].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Petition – No Grounds Made Out – Application Rightly Dismissed – Court found that none of the conditions under Order VII Rule 11 were satisfied – There was a valid cause of action and no legal bar to institution of proceedings – Allegations raised in arbitration petition were not inherently meritless – Commercial Court’s order upheld [Paras 6-7, 22-32].

Partnership Act – Dissolution Not Automatic on Death – Clause in Deed Overrides Section 42(c) – Partnership at Will – Deed explicitly stated that firm would not dissolve on a partner’s death and would continue with successors – Held: Such contractual stipulations prevail over Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act [Paras 33-34].

Commercial Courts Act – Writ Petition Maintainable Despite Section 8 – Constitutional Jurisdiction Not Ousted – Section 8 bars revision/petition against interlocutory orders of Commercial Court – However, High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 is constitutional and not excluded by statutory bar – Court may interfere in rare and compelling circumstances [Paras 16-21].

Final Decision – No Interference Warranted – Writ Petition Dismissed – High Court declined to interfere with Commercial Court’s rejection of Order VII Rule 11 application – Matter directed to proceed under Section 9 of Arbitration Act [Paras 36-37].