Anticipatory Bail – Criminal History – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of collecting money on behalf of jail officials through illegal means – State opposed bail citing petitioner’s prior criminal history, including a case under Section 302 IPC – Court observed that despite the availability of evidence, the petitioner had not been arrested earlier, suggesting a lack of intent by the police to arrest – Similarly placed co-accused already granted bail – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1-6].

Role of Criminal History in Bail Decisions – Court emphasized the importance of a reasoned approach in considering criminal history – Distinguished between cases resulting in conviction and those pending or acquitted – Stressed the need for a balanced judgment between individual liberty and public safety [Paras 7-10].

Conditions for Bail – Court imposed stringent conditions to ensure petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation and to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses – Petitioner required to furnish a personal bond and surety, or provide a fixed deposit in favor of the Chief Judicial Magistrate [Paras 11-18].

Final Opportunity for Reformation – Court noted that the petitioner was given a final opportunity to correct his behavior, warning that future offenses would impact the assessment in subsequent bail applications [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Bail granted under strict conditions with a warning of severe consequences for any future criminal behavior.

Criminal Law – Parole Application – Denial Based on Conviction and Foreign National Status – High Court examines statutory provisions and case facts – Orders release on parole with conditions – [Paras 1-15].

Parole and Reformative Process – Relevance of Good Conduct – Court recognizes petitioner’s good conduct and long incarceration – Emphasizes parole as a reformative measure – [Paras 7-10].

Application of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 – Assessment of Convict’s Parole Eligibility – High Court reviews rule 1211 exceptions and special circumstances – Grants parole with specified conditions – [Paras 6-12].

Decision:

Writ Petition Allowed – Parole Granted – Conditions Imposed:

Personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount.

Weekly reporting to local SHO.

Provision of an active contact number.

Restriction from leaving Delhi NCR.

Surrender to Jail Superintendent post-parole period.

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Petition for quashing FIR on grounds of false implication and counterblast to another FIR lodged by the petitioners – Petitioners claimed they were falsely implicated to counter FIR No. 60 lodged by them – Held, allegations in FIR prima facie constituted offenses under IPC – High Court emphasized that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be sparing and only to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice [Paras 1-22].

Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Scope and limitations – High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial to assess the truthfulness of allegations – FIR cannot be quashed solely based on petitioners’ claim of false implication – FIR and investigation disclosed prima facie commission of cognizable offenses – Petition dismissed [Paras 12-20].

Decision: Petition dismissed – FIR No. 61 of 2020 and related proceedings upheld – High Court directs petitioners to seek remedy through trial process – Observations made during disposal of the petition to not affect the merits of the case.
 

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Additional Evidence – Petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for ejectment of the tenant on grounds of non-payment of rent and personal necessity – Landlord sought to lead additional evidence by examining a Director of the company after initially closing its evidence – Tenant opposed, citing that this was an attempt to fill a lacuna – Rent Controller allowed the application, which was upheld by the High Court – Court ruled that additional evidence was necessary to determine the bona fide necessity of the landlord-company, and the tenant was duly compensated with costs [Paras 1-21].

Inherent Powers of the Court – Reopening of Evidence – Court emphasized that, although Order 18 Rule 17A was deleted, Section 151 CPC empowers the court to allow additional evidence in appropriate cases to ensure justice – Additional evidence was permitted as it was necessary for the effective adjudication of the landlord’s claim of personal necessity [Paras 7-13].

Legal Precedents – Cited Supreme Court rulings on the use of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC for reopening evidence, highlighting that such powers should be used sparingly and only when necessary to clarify issues or achieve justice [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Petition dismissed. The High Court upheld the order of the Rent Controller, allowing the landlord to lead additional evidence, finding no illegality in the order.
 

Jurisdiction of PCA – Orders Against Private Individuals – Legal Validity – PCA directed the registration of FIRs against appellants, who are private individuals, following civil disputes misrepresented as criminal matters. The court held that PCA's jurisdiction under the Punjab Police Act, 2007, is restricted to cases involving police personnel, and it cannot pass orders against private individuals. The PCA’s initial order dated May 25, 2012, was found to be without jurisdiction. High Court set aside the Single Judge's order that upheld the PCA’s directions. Appeals allowed, and orders of PCA quashed [Paras 19-27].

Cloak of Civil Dispute with Criminal Allegations – Abuse of Process – The dispute between the parties was fundamentally civil in nature, involving property and contractual disagreements. The Court emphasized that civil disputes should not be disguised as criminal matters to gain undue advantage in ongoing or potential civil litigation. The involvement of PCA was deemed inappropriate, and it was held that such disputes should be resolved in civil courts [Paras 30-31].

Decision:  Appeals allowed – The impugned orders of the PCA directing the registration of FIRs against the appellants, as well as the Single Judge's order affirming the same, were set aside. The court reaffirmed that PCA has no jurisdiction over private individuals in civil disputes masquerading as criminal cases [Paras 18-27].

Income Tax – Charitable Purpose – Educational Activities – Assessee, NIIT Foundation, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and granted registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, engaged in educational and skill development activities for underprivileged youth – Revenue challenged tax-exempt status, claiming activities were commercial – Tribunal set aside CIT€’s order under Section 263 – Delhi High Court upheld Tribunal’s decision – Emphasized systematic instruction and training as “education” under Section 2(15) – Activities aligned with the charitable purpose of education – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Application of Section 263 – Scope and Validity – High Court found that CIT€ exceeded jurisdiction under Section 263 – Original assessment order by AO after thorough scrutiny justified – CIT€’s conclusion of activities being commercial based on TDS and service tax deductions was flawed – Revenue’s failure to demonstrate any specific error or prejudice in AO’s assessment [Paras 21-35].

Procedural Compliance – Enquiry and Verification – AO had conducted detailed verification of NIIT Foundation’s activities, compliance with regulatory requirements, and documentation of charitable educational programs – High Court emphasized importance of procedural fairness and adequate enquiry by CIT€ under Section 263 [Paras 36-48].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s order upheld – NIIT Foundation’s activities recognized as charitable educational activities under Section 2(15) – Directions for Revenue to grant exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act [Para 49].
 

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Section 326A IPC – Appellant accused of throwing acid on his wife during a matrimonial dispute – Injuries confirmed to be erythema with no burn injuries or loss of vision – Petitioner in judicial custody for 80 days – Investigation complete – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1-10].

Judicial Discretion – Bail Principles – Reference to Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. – Emphasis on presumption of innocence and principle that bail is the rule, jail is the exception – Consideration of Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 7-9].

Conditions of Bail – Directed to appear before Investigating Officer periodically – Restrictions on travel and contact with witnesses – Surrender of passport – Provision for cancellation of bail upon violation of conditions [Para 10].

Decision: Bail granted – Conditions imposed for periodic reporting to Investigating Officer, restrictions on travel, surrender of passport, and non-tampering of evidence.
 

Will – Proof and Validity – Dispute over property between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law – Appellant claimed exclusive ownership based on a Will executed by the deceased son – Respondent contested the Will as forged – Trial Court and First Appellate Court found the Will shrouded in suspicious circumstances – Scribe of the Will was a milkman with minimal education, and witnesses were closely related to the appellant, raising doubts – The Will was not produced for two years after the death of the testator – Both Courts rejected the Will and dismissed the appellant's suit – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Suspicious Circumstances – Court found multiple suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will – Non-registration of the Will, delayed production, and the exclusion of the respondent (wife) from the estate despite a love marriage with the deceased were key factors – The appellant failed to dispel these suspicions or prove the Will as the last valid testament of the deceased [Paras 7-9].

Legal Principles – Reiterated that in cases where a Will is surrounded by suspicion, the onus is on the propounder to remove all doubts – Cited principles from Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the heavy burden on the propounder to prove the validity of a Will in the presence of suspicious circumstances [Paras 8-9].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed. The Court found no substantial question of law requiring its determination, and upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court, dismissing the appellant’s claim to the property.

Criminal Contempt – Unruly Behavior by Advocates – Members of the Kottayam Bar Association were found guilty of criminal contempt for disrupting court proceedings, shouting slogans, and hurling abusive remarks at the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Kottayam. The court emphasized the seriousness of such behavior, which interfered with the administration of justice and tended to lower the authority of the court. The apologies submitted by the respondents were deemed insufficient by the court [Paras 1-4].

Acceptance of Apology – Conditional Service – Despite the respondents’ unconditional apologies conforming to Rule 14(a) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, the court decided not to discharge them solely based on their apologies. Instead, the court mandated that the respondents provide free legal aid to the poor and needy for six months as a form of purging the contempt [Paras 4-6].

Order – Conditional Discharge – The court ordered the respondents to render their services to the District Legal Services Authority, Kottayam, for six months, while allowing them to continue their legal practice. The Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority was tasked with assigning legal aid work to the respondents and submitting a report on their performance at the end of the six-month period [Para 6].

Decision: Apologies accepted conditionally – Respondents to provide free legal aid for six months. The court retains the right to monitor compliance through reports from the District Legal Services Authority, Kottayam.