Constitutional Law – Right to Life and Liberty – Live-in Relationship – Protection from Threats – Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Petitioners, a couple in a live-in relationship, sought protection from threats by relatives. Citing previous judgments, the court emphasized the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21, which includes the right to live with a person of one’s choice. The court directed the appropriate authorities to assess the threat perception and take necessary action to protect the petitioners’ life and liberty, irrespective of the legal status of their relationship. – Directions issued for protection of petitioners’ life and liberty. [Paras 1-16]

Right to Life and Liberty – Legal Status of Relationship Irrelevant for Protection – Analysis – The court held that protection under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount and not contingent upon the legality of the relationship. Previous judgments of the High Court and Division Bench were cited to support the principle that every individual, regardless of the societal acceptance of their relationship, is entitled to protection of their life and liberty. [Paras 10-14]

Decision – Protection Directed – Without Commenting on Relationship Legality – The High Court disposed of the petition with directions to the relevant authorities to consider the petitioners’ representation and take appropriate action to ensure their protection. The court clarified that this order does not preclude the State or any other aggrieved party from initiating legal proceedings against the petitioners if justified by their actions. [Paras 15-17]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR registered under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC – Allegations of massive fraud and forgery in issuing challan receipts for vehicle release – Court found prima facie evidence against petitioner – Held, ongoing investigation justified, no grounds for quashing FIR [Paras 1-20].

Departmental Inquiry vs. Criminal Proceedings – Petitioner exonerated in departmental inquiry – Court held exoneration in departmental inquiry does not preclude criminal proceedings – Different standards of proof applicable in disciplinary and criminal matters [Paras 10-12].

Investigation – Interim Measures – Petitioner absconding and not cooperating with investigation – Court directed I.G. Police to oversee thorough and unbiased investigation – Emphasized need for scientific and forensic assistance in evidence collection [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held, serious allegations require comprehensive investigation – No stay on arrest – I.G. Police to ensure effective investigation and compliance [Paras 20-22].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act – The petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court and the conviction was upheld by the Appellate Court – Petitioner issued cheques which were dishonored due to insufficient funds – Trial Court relied on the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act – Petitioner argued that cheques were issued as security for other transactions, not for clearing a debt [Paras 1-16].

Burden of Proof – Section 139 of NI Act – The Court reiterated that the accused must rebut the presumption of liability by leading cogent evidence – In this case, the petitioner successfully rebutted the presumption by establishing that cheques were issued as security, not for payment of a debt – Prosecution failed to produce invoices or any documentary evidence to prove the transaction [Paras 12-15].

Evaluation of Evidence – Invoices and Supply of Goods – The complainant failed to produce any invoices or documentation to substantiate the supply of goods claimed – Cross-examination of the complainant revealed admissions that contradicted the prosecution’s case – No sufficient evidence to establish that the accused owed the amount stated in the cheques [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the Trial Court and its confirmation by the Appellate Court set aside – Petitioner acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act – Bail bonds cancelled [Para 16].

Criminal Procedure – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners sought quashing of the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and ongoing proceedings – Allegation of dismantling boundary marks and issuing threats – Contention that the dispute was civil in nature and the criminal proceedings were initiated as a form of harassment – Impugned cognizance order issued on a printed proforma without judicial application of mind – Order quashed, Magistrate directed to reconsider in accordance with law [Paras 1-23].
Cognizance – Requirement of Judicial Application of Mind – Court held that the cognizance/summoning order must reflect judicial application of mind and not be issued mechanically on a printed proforma – Emphasized that the Magistrate must apply mind to the material on record before taking cognizance [Paras 9-14, 18-20].
Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Exercise of Inherent Powers – Reiterated the principles governing the exercise of inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice – Found the mechanical issuance of cognizance order without judicial application of mind as an abuse of process [Paras 16-17, 21].
Decision – Application Partly Allowed – Held – Impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 25.07.2022 set aside – Magistrate directed to pass a fresh order on the charge-sheet after due consideration – No opinion expressed on the merits of the case [Paras 23-24].
 

Execution of Order – Mortgage Deed – Section 83 TP Act – Petition for quashing order rejecting objection against execution of mortgage deed – High Court upheld execution order, emphasizing that absence of decree does not bar execution – Order dated 30.06.1987 considered executable despite procedural technicalities – Execution to proceed in favor of respondents [Paras 1-23].

Ministerial vs. Judicial Orders – Nature of Orders Under Section 83 TP Act – Contention that order was ministerial and not executable rejected – High Court clarified that orders passed in miscellaneous cases, if leading to rights determination, are executable – Distinction between ministerial and judicial functions discussed [Paras 5-7, 8, 13].

Limitation and Doctrine of Merger – Applicability in Execution Proceedings – Argument of execution barred by limitation and non-applicability of merger doctrine dismissed – High Court found execution within limitation period and previous judgments affirmed execution's legality [Paras 9-12, 17-18].

Justice-Oriented Approach – Interpretation of Procedural Laws – Emphasized on substantial justice over procedural technicalities – Referenced precedents highlighting liberal interpretation to prevent miscarriage of justice – Court upheld procedural flexibility for justice's sake [Paras 10-12, 13-15].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Held – Objection against execution rejected, execution to proceed as ordered by lower court – Emphasized prompt execution to avoid undue delays and uphold legal rights of decree-holders [Paras 19-20].
 

Electricity Supply – Legal Obligation – Section 43 of Electricity Act – Appeals against the denial of electricity connections by Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (JVVNL) citing planned development concerns. Court held that Section 43 of the Electricity Act mandates distribution licensees to supply electricity to premises upon request by owner or occupier. The denial of electricity connections is contrary to statutory obligations, causing financial loss and encouraging electricity theft. The court emphasized JVVNL’s duty to provide connections within one month of application receipt, dismissing prior orders restricting this duty as contrary to the Act. [Paras 1-16]

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The court quashed the restrictions on JVVNL from issuing electricity connections and directed compliance with Section 43 of the Electricity Act. Appellants entitled to electricity connections as per statutory provisions. [Paras 14-15]
 

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Possession and Injunction – Appeal against the reversal of a trial court’s decree granting permanent injunction in favor of the appellant – Trial court decreed that the appellant had established possession over the disputed property – Appellate court reversed the decision, excluding key evidence (an unregistered lease deed) – High Court held the unregistered lease deed to be admissible under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, citing long possession and acceptance of rent by the State – Reversal by the appellate court deemed unjustified – Decree of the trial court restored [Paras 1-32].

Admissibility of Evidence – Unregistered Lease Deed – Appellant’s possession since 1938 under an unregistered lease deed – High Court found the lease deed admissible despite lack of registration, due to the age of the document and continuous possession under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act – Established legal principles allowing oral leases and possession to confer tenancy rights in agricultural lands – Supported by precedents and statutory interpretations [Paras 16-21].

Injunction – Suit for Permanent Injunction – Plaintiff seeking to restrain the State from dispossessing him from the suit property – Trial court found continuous possession and payment of rent by the appellant – High Court confirmed the trial court’s decree for permanent injunction, emphasizing the importance of protecting lawful possession against state interference [Paras 24-26, 31-33].

Land Tenure and Tenancy Rights – Recognition of Tenancy – Continuous possession and rent payment acknowledged by the State – High Court upheld the appellant’s tenancy rights, recognizing the legal effects of continuous and peaceful possession even without formal documentation – Government’s acceptance of rent as critical evidence of tenancy [Paras 20-23].

Decision: Second appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the first appellate court set aside – Judgment and decree of the trial court restored, confirming the appellant’s right to permanent injunction.
 

Debt Recovery – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioners challenge the order of the Recovery Officer executing a recovery certificate for Rs. 12,66,31,700/- issued by DRT, Jabalpur – Petitioners argue lack of opportunity to file objections on first appearance, violating principles of natural justice – Court examines jurisdiction and procedural compliance of the Recovery Officer [Paras 1-22].

Alternative Remedy – Writ Jurisdiction – Despite the availability of alternative remedy under Section 30 of RDB Act, petitioners seek writ jurisdiction on grounds of procedural irregularity and jurisdictional errors – Full Bench and Supreme Court precedents on exercising writ jurisdiction despite alternative remedies discussed – Court emphasizes specific pleadings and evidence required to challenge jurisdiction [Paras 9-20].

Judicial Precedents – Applicability and Distinction – Various precedents considered for the applicability of writ jurisdiction despite alternative remedies – Court differentiates facts of cited cases, emphasizing need for specific pleading on jurisdictional errors and procedural violations [Paras 19-20].

Decision:

Petition Dismissed – Court finds no violation of principles of natural justice or jurisdictional error by the Recovery Officer – Petitioners directed to pursue alternative remedy under Section 30 of RDB Act – Order of Recovery Officer upheld, execution proceedings to continue [Paras 21-23].

Constitutional Law – Protection of Life and Liberty – Live-in Relationship – The petitioners, Harpreet Kaur and another, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection of their life and liberty, as they feared harm from relatives unhappy with their live-in relationship. The court acknowledged the petitioners' right to protection irrespective of societal views on their relationship​​.

Protection for Live-in Couples – Judicial Precedents – The court referred to several precedents where protection was granted to couples in live-in relationships, including Pardeep Singh v. State of Haryana, Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, and Amandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab, noting that individuals in such relationships are entitled to equal protection under the law​​.

Assessment of Threat Perception – The court directed respondent No.2 to consider the petitioners' representation dated 01.05.2024, assess the threat perception, and take appropriate action in accordance with the law. The decision emphasized that protection should be provided based on the perceived threat to life and liberty​​.

Legal Right to Choose Partner – The judgment reaffirmed that every adult has the right to live with a partner of their choice, and protection of life and liberty is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court held that the legality of the relationship is not a primary concern when addressing threats to life and liberty​​.

Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioners' representation and take appropriate action based on the threat perception. The court also clarified that this order does not prevent the State or any aggrieved person from initiating appropriate legal proceedings against the petitioners if warranted by their actions​​.