Quashing of FIR – Civil Dispute with Elements of Criminality – FIR Not Quashed – The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR on the ground that the dispute was purely civil in nature and related to non-compliance with contractual obligations – Allegations included siphoning of ₹6.32 crore from complainants under false assurances of timely completion of a real estate project – Held: While the dispute involves contractual issues, the allegations prima facie suggest criminal misappropriation and cheating, as dishonest inducement is evident in the context of non-delivery of possession despite receipt of 87% payment – FIR cannot be quashed at the nascent stage of investigation [Paras 13-15].

FIR as Basis for Investigation – Role of Mens Rea and Dishonest Intent – Investigation Necessary – Allegations in the FIR suggest that the petitioners misled complainants by making false assurances and misusing funds intended for the project – Mens rea, an essential ingredient of Sections 406 and 420 IPC, is a factual question requiring investigation – Quashing of FIR at the threshold would thwart a legitimate investigation – Investigating agency must be permitted to collect evidence [Paras 15-17].

Scope of Court’s Power under Section 528 BNSS – Interference at Investigation Stage – Rare Instances for Quashing – Courts should rarely interfere at the investigation stage unless the FIR lacks prima facie cognizable offence or is inherently absurd – Guided by Supreme Court precedents (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401), the Court held that investigation is essential to ascertain criminality, if any, in the acts of the petitioners [Paras 6-12].

Judgment and Outcome – FIR quashing petition dismissed – Investigation to proceed to ascertain whether offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are made out – Clarified that observations in the order shall not prejudice the petitioners during investigation or trial [Para 17].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Investigation to proceed – FIR not quashed.

Import of Guns for Entertainment Purposes - Petitioner's claim that imported guns, which do not release a projectile, should not be classified as "firearms" under Section 2(e) of the Arms Act, 1959, thus negating the need for a license [Paras 1-2].

Exemption Under Arms Rules, 2016 - Reference to exemption notification dated 18.07.2016 for “firearm replicas”, with the argument that the petitioner’s imported guns are akin to firearm replicas as they only fire blank cartridges emitting sound [Paras 3-4].

Representation to Ministry of Home Affairs - Court's suggestion for the petitioner to make a representation to respondent no.2, the Union of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs, for examination of the forensic report and related materials [Para 5].

Direction for Comprehensive Representation - Court instructs the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to respondent no.2, to be considered and responded to with a speaking order within eight weeks [Paras 6-7.1].

Disposal of Writ Petition - The writ petition is disposed of with directions for action based on the digitally signed copy of the order [Para 8].

Custody and Guardianship of Minor Child – Varunavi, a minor whose parents died in a road accident, became the subject of a guardianship dispute between the paternal grandfather (Appellant) and the maternal grandmother (Respondent) – Both filed petitions under the Guardians and Wards Act for appointment as guardian of the child's person and property. [Para 2]

Trial Court Decision – Custody of the child was granted to the maternal grandmother with the trial court allowing G.W.O.P. No. 8 of 2012 filed by the maternal grandfather and dismissing G.W.O.P. No. 9 of 2012 filed by the paternal grandmother. [Para 3]

High Court Ruling – Following an interim order and mutual agreement by both parties, the Court confirmed the interim order as final – The maternal grandparents are appointed guardians of Varunavi for both person and property, with specific conditions regarding custody and care arrangements – The paternal grandfather to hand over the child to the maternal grandparents every weekend and comply with certain conditions regarding the child's care. [Paras 4, 5]

Directions Issued – Conditions set for the care and custody of the minor child, including provisions for food and contingencies if the appellant cannot care for the child. [Para 4]

Appeals Disposed – Both Civil Miscellaneous Appeals disposed of with the above directions, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [Para 5]

Writ - Seizure of Driving Licenses and Legal Arguments – Petitioners, drivers in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, had their licenses seized following accidents and subsequent registration of criminal cases under Section 304 (A) IPC – Petitioners argued that they were not convicted and no offence under the Motor Vehicles Act was committed – Respondent Police argued that licenses could be suspended for cognizable offences under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules – Petitioners approached the court without responding to show cause notices, leading to the contention that the writ petitions should be dismissed. [Paras 2-3]

Judicial Precedents and Legal Provisions – Examination of precedents and legal provisions regarding the authority’s power to revoke or suspend driving licenses – Discussion of the limitation of police power under Section 206 of the Motor Vehicles Act for specific offences – The court noted that the seizure of the license is not mandatory for action under Section 19 of the Act and that the police do not have the power to seize the license based solely on the registration of an FIR for offences other than those specified in Section 206. [Paras 6-8]

Decision and Directions – The court held that the respondent police cannot seize driving licenses and that it is not for the Regional Transport Authority to pre-judge the guilt of the petitioners before the filing of the final report in the criminal cases – Directed the respondent RTOs to return the driving licenses of the petitioners within one week and allowed the respondent Police to forward relevant materials to the RTOs post-filing of final reports for appropriate action under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act. [Para 9]

Decision: Petitions allowed – Respondent RTOs directed to return the driving licenses to the petitioners – Respondent Police can forward materials to RTOs for potential action under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act after filing final reports. No costs.

Land Allocation Dispute – Denial of Land to Petitioners – Challenged Order of Financial Commissioner Dismissing Petitioner's Claim for Land – No Entitlement to Specific Land Proved – Writ Petition Dismissed. [Para 1-14]

Land Allocation and Ownership – Dispute over 12 Bighas 10 Biswas of Land in Village Kalauli Jattan – Petitioners' Claim for Allocation for House Construction – Dispute Originating from Orders of Financial Commissioner and Director of Rural Development and Panchayats – Various Legal Proceedings Traced Including Writ Petitions and Supreme Court Order – Final Determination that Land Not Reserved for Petitioners, Leading to Dismissal of Writ Petition. [Para 1-14]

Panchayat Land Partition – Partition of Land Between Gram Panchayat Kalauli and Kalauli Jattan Based on Voter Count – Division of Land and Determination of Ownership – Relevant Khasra Numbers Specified for Both Panchayats. [Para 6-7]

Judicial Review – Evaluation of Multiple Orders and Reports Regarding Land Dispute – Consideration of Revenue Records, Committee Reports, and Orders from High Court and Supreme Court – Ultimate Rejection of Petitioners' Claim to Specific Land Parcel in Village Kalauli Jattan. [Para 3-13]

Decision – High Court Upholds Order of Financial Commissioner – Petitioners' Claim to Land in Khasra No. 80 of Village Kalauli Jattan Rejected Based on Evidence and Legal Precedents – Writ Petition Dismissed with No Merit Found. [Para 14]

Anticipatory Bail Plea by ASI in Bribery Case – Petitioner ASI Kulwant Singh, involved in FIR No. 23 dated 09.09.2023 for demanding and accepting a bribe. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. Allegations include demanding Rs. 50,000 and accepting Rs. 20,000 as a bribe from the complainant, Bhuvan Singh. [Paras 1-3]

Interim Bail and Background – Petitioner was granted interim bail on 18.12.2023, continuing till the date of judgment. Case background includes petitioner's previous investigation against the complainant, leading to allegations of demanding a bribe for favor in investigation. [Paras 2, 4-5]

Audio Evidence Against Petitioner – State provided audio recordings establishing petitioner's demand and acceptance of the bribe. The Court listened to these recordings and found prima facie evidence against the petitioner. [Para 5, 7]

Nature of Allegations and Need for Custodial Interrogation – Given the serious allegations and evidence, custodial interrogation deemed necessary. The Court referenced multiple Supreme Court judgments underscoring the gravity of economic offences and the necessity of custodial interrogation in corruption cases. [Paras 9-17]

Delay in Filing Complaint Not Fatal – Despite a three-month gap between bribe demand and complaint filing, the Court found the delay not fatal to the case due to the evidence and the nature of the offence. [Para 8]

Decision – Anticipatory bail denied considering the serious nature of allegations and evidence. The interim bail granted earlier is vacated. [Paras 10, 18-19]

Promotion and Seniority Dispute – Challenge against seniority list by petitioners, who were promoted to Havildar Instructors and then to Platoon Commanders. Dispute arises due to the retrospective effect of promotions not being acknowledged in the seniority list. [Para 2-5, 10]

Administrative Orders and Rectification – Respondent authority's right to rectify promotion orders, necessity of issuing show cause notice and providing a hearing before altering granted benefits. Current promotions maintained until final order. [Para 10-12]

Judicial Direction – Direction to State to issue show cause notice, conduct a hearing, and finalize the seniority list within 6 months, maintaining status quo in promotions until the final decision. [Para 13-14]

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal complaint No.7507 dated 13.06.2016 and subsequent proceedings – Concerns cheque dishonor under Sections 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, related to a real estate transaction [Paras 1, 9].

Dispute Over Payment Amount – Respondent paid ₹23,54,573/- as advance for flat registration – Petitioners issued a cheque of ₹36,76,234/-, which was stopped due to a purported error in the amount – Respondent alleges an agreement to pay ₹36,76,234/- considering market conditions [Paras 2-4, 7].

Payment Details and Legal Notice – Respondent's calculation sheet (Annexure R1), prepared independently, not accepted or signed by petitioners – Petitioners replied to legal notice, clarifying the intended refund amount as ₹23,54,573/- [Paras 4, 7].

Judicial Analysis and Decision – No evidence of petitioners agreeing to pay more than ₹23,54,573/- – Continuing proceedings seen as misuse of legal process – Order for quashing the complaint and all consequential proceedings issued [Paras 6, 9].

Will - Background and Decree Challenge – Regular Second Appeal filed against decrees from Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohali, and Additional District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) – Appeal challenges decrees which favored the respondent-plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning inheritance disputes and validity of a Will. [Paras 1, 8]

Allegation of Forged Will and Inheritance Dispute – Plaintiffs (respondents) allege Hardial Singh’s Will, dated 13.12.1973, favoring defendant-appellants, is forged and void – Hardial Singh allegedly of unsound mind before death, with no Will in revenue record – Plaintiffs claim rightful share in inherited property. [Para 2]

Defendants’ Stance on Validity of Will and Mutation – Defendants (appellants) assert Hardial Singh's Will is valid, sanctioning mutation of inheritance – Claim the Will accepted by revenue officer, and property was ancestral and coparcenary in Hardial Singh's hands. [Para 3]

Trial and Lower Appellate Court Findings – Courts found Will unproven, not supported by credible evidence – Mutation based on said Will deemed illegal – Plaintiffs’ suit decreed, upholding their inheritance claim. [Paras 7, 8, 14-16]

Appellants' Arguments on Court Errors and Legal Principles – Appellants argue misapprehension of law and facts by lower courts, delay in suit filing, and error in dismissing applications for amendment and additional evidence – Cite various legal precedents. [Para 9]

Respondents’ Counter-Arguments on Will’s Genuineness and Limitation – Respondents assert appellants failed to prove Will's genuineness – Argue no limitation issue as plaintiffs were unaware of mutation till 2007, suit filed timely. [Para 10]

Protection of Bona Fide Purchaser Rights – Argument for respondent No.7 as bona fide purchaser, contending rightful protection of his interests by lower appellate court. [Para 11]

Appellate Court's Analysis and Conclusion – Appellate Court finds no substantial legal question raised by appellants – Upholds lower courts' findings on Will's invalidity and plaintiffs' inheritance rights – Dismisses appeal. [Paras 12-24]