Forgery and Cheating in Land Transaction – Dispute over land sale involving fraudulent representation and cheating – Allegations against Subodh Mishra for fraudulently representing himself as the owner of the land and deceiving Rakesh Vyas – Anurag Shukla, a bonafide purchaser of the land, incorrectly implicated in the case. [Paras 6, 20-22, 24-25]

Role of Dinesh Sharma, Station House Officer – Allegations of concealing information and siding with accused – Investigation found no connivance with Subodh Mishra – Report by police officer not binding on court and subject to judicial scrutiny. [Paras 23, 33]

Bonafide Purchase and Ownership of Land – Role of Seema Sharma and others as bonafide purchasers of the land in question – Purchased from Anurag Shukla without knowledge of the dispute between Rakesh Vyas and Subodh Mishra – Discharged from accusations under Sections 420 & 120-B of the IPC. [Paras 24, 34]

Civil Nature of Dispute – Emphasis on the civil nature of the property dispute – Misuse of criminal proceedings to resolve civil disputes discouraged – Supreme Court precedents highlighted to distinguish between civil and criminal aspects in property disputes. [Paras 27-29]

Decision – M.Cr.C. No.1433 of 2016 (Dinesh Sharma) allowed, proceedings quashed – Cr.R. No.162 of 2016 (Seema Sharma and others) allowed, applicants discharged – M.Cr.C. No.4396 of 2016 (Anurag Shukla) allowed, FIR and proceedings quashed – Cr.R. No.1643 of 2015 (Anita Vyas and others) dismissed. [Paras 33-36]

Civil Suit - Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Challenge to the order allowing the application during the pendency of a suit - Relationship between parties not disputed - Petitioner is the son of respondent No.1, and respondent No.2 is the grandson of respondent No.1 - Compromise had taken place between the parties in the earlier suit, transferring the suit property to the petitioner and his minor son, with no rights for respondent No.2 - Similar compromise in a subsequent suit led to the withdrawal of the suit - Respondent No.2's claim as a necessary party rejected - Impugned order allowing the application set aside.

Revision Petition – Challenge to order of Sessions Judge – Dismissal of complaint against the petitioner-accused under Sections 420, 406, 465, 466, 467, 471, and 120-B IPC – Complaint initially dismissed for non-appearance – Sessions Judge’s order setting aside dismissal and remanding for fresh consideration challenged – Interpretation of Section 401 Cr.P.C. – Right of accused to be heard in a revision petition filed by the complainant – Impugned order passed without hearing petitioner-accused – Order set aside – Direction to Sessions Judge to reexamine the matter after hearing the accused – Expedited hearing directed.

Bail Application – Regular bail granted to Jagsir Singh @ Jagga in FIR No. 101 dated 21.08.2023 registered for offences under IPC Sections 379-B, 420, 383, 411, 120-B and Arms Act Sections 25, 27 at Police Station Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga. Reliance on co-accused Sikander Singh alias Sikanderi’s bail, the principle of parity applied. [Para 7]

Circumstances of Offence – Allegations involve using a woman as bait for extortion. Petitioner's connection to the crime questioned due to delayed victim statements. Investigation concluded and challan presented. [Paras 2-3]

Opposition by State – State's opposition to bail due to the petitioner’s involvement in multiple other cases, including under Sections 384 and 307 of the IPC. [Para 4]

Legal Precedents – Reference to 'Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another', 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 831, and 'Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of UP (SC)', (2012) 2 SCC 382, emphasizing that multiple cases against an individual are not grounds to deny bail. [Paras 5, 7]

Decision – Petitioner granted bail considering the duration of incarceration and parity with co-accused. Bail terms to be satisfied as per the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. [Para 7]

Medical Unfitness in Recruitment - Hypertension and Varicose Vein - Petitioner declared medically unfit for the post of Constable (Animal Transport) in ITBP due to 'varicose vein both legs' and 'high blood pressure', later revised to 'hypertension with mild mitral regurgitation'. Petitioner contends wrongful rejection based on hypertension, a condition reportedly curable with drug therapy. [Paras 1-3]

Court’s Directive for Re-examination - High Court orders re-examination of petitioner by PGIMER's Medical Board. Subsequent medical reports confirm Stage-I Hypertension, manageable with drug therapy, and absence of varicose veins. [Paras 4-5]

Expert Medical Opinion Upheld - High Court relies on consistent medical opinions from various boards, affirming petitioner's hypertension. It emphasizes the inability of the judicial system to substitute the expert medical opinions with its judgment. [Paras 6-7]

Precedent and Finality of Medical Board’s Opinion - Citing a similar case (LPA No.871 of 2022 titled ‘Sumit Vs. Union of India’), the court underscores the finality of the medical board's opinion in recruitment processes, dismissing any further judicial intervention in the matter. [Para 7]

Decision - Petition challenging medical unfitness in the recruitment process dismissed, upholding the opinions of the medical experts. [Para 8]

Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction of Civil Court under SARFAESI Act – Suit based on Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for specific performance and damages – Jurisdiction of civil court not barred under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act – DRT or other tribunals not empowered to adjudicate rights arising from MOU – Civil Court's jurisdiction plenary unless expressly or impliedly ousted – Suit maintainable before Civil Court [Paras 1, 5-16].

Contract Law – Validity and Enforceability of MOU – MOU executed acknowledging property mortgaged with bank – No earnest money paid by plaintiff nor steps for Change of Land Use (CLU) taken – MOU became non-enforceable after stipulated period without plaintiff’s action – Plaintiff’s non-approach to avail remedies under SARFAESI Act notable [Paras 17-21].

Temporary Injunction – Principles for Grant – Three basic principles for grant of injunction: Prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss or injury – Plaintiff’s case fails on all three counts – MOU non-enforceable after expiry of stipulated period without plaintiff's action – Balance of convenience and irreparable injury not in favor of plaintiff – Injunction declined [Paras 22-23].

Property Law – Lis Pendens – Alienation of property during pendency of suit at risk of party creating third party rights – Defendant No.3 (Apollo Hospitals North Ltd.) holds title and possession with necessary permissions, alienation during suit at their own risk [Para 24].

Decision – Jurisdiction of Civil Court in the matter upheld – Plea of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC by plaintiff rejected – Suit's outcome to be decided independently, without influence from interim order findings [Paras 25-26].

Proclaimed Offender – Quashing of Proclamation Order – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order declaring petitioner as proclaimed person in Negotiable Instruments Act case – Petitioner’s absence at trial led to proclamation – Impugned order set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory conditions of Section 82 (2) Cr.P.C. and lack of recorded satisfaction by trial court – Petition allowed. [Para 1, 3-4, 12-13]

Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonor – Complaint against petitioner for purchasing buffaloes and issuing cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds – Legal notice sent to accused returned unserved, leading to proclamation and subsequent trial proceedings. [Para 2]

Criminal Procedure – Service of Process – Issue regarding service of bailable and non-bailable warrants to petitioner – Contention of non-service of warrants and improper following of Section 82 Cr.P.C. procedures by trial court – Importance of proper service and recording of satisfaction before issuing proclamation highlighted. [Para 3-4, 12]

Compromise and Withdrawal of Complaint – Settlement between parties – Complainant’s withdrawal of complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act recorded by trial court – Impact on ongoing criminal proceedings and proclamation order. [Para 8-9]

Criminal Justice and Personal Liberty – Balance between individual’s personal liberty and societal interests – Necessity of adhering to procedures established by law in line with Article 21 of the Constitution – Reference to relevant case laws for proper procedure in issuing proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. [Para 11-12]

Decision – Quashing of proclamation order – Petition allowed due to procedural lapses in issuing proclamation – Trial court’s order declaring petitioner as proclaimed person set aside, highlighting the importance of following legal procedures in criminal justice system. [Para 13]

Detention under Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986 – Challenging the detention of Md. Nizamoddin under Section 3(2) of the Act – Alleged as a ‘Sexual Offender’ for committing sexual assault on a minor girl multiple times, resulting in pregnancy. [Para 2-4, 9]

Contention of Petitioner – Detention order issued without proper subjective satisfaction and consideration of material – Act committed against an individual, affecting ‘law and order’ but not ‘public order’. [Para 5, 11]

Argument of Respondent – Detenu’s acts created widespread fear and insecurity among the public, especially school girls, thus affecting public order. [Para 6]

Court’s Analysis – Detaining authority failed to differentiate between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’ – Single incident within the confines of a home, not in public space – No previous history of similar offenses by detenu to suggest habitual disturbance of public order. [Paras 7, 11, 14]

Legal Principles and Precedents – Reference to Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal and distinction between public order and law and order disturbances – Preventive detention to be used in rare cases, requiring subjective satisfaction of affecting public order. [Para 12, 15]

Decision – Detention order and subsequent confirmation order set aside as illegal – Liberty granted to prosecution and detenu to prove and disprove allegations, respectively, in a trial court – Trial court to decide based on evidence without being influenced by High Court’s observations. [Paras 16-18]

Challenge to Re-Advertisement of Job Position – Petitioner, a dental sciences diploma holder, questioned the legitimacy of a fresh advertisement for a Dental Technician post by respondent No. 3, alleging attempts to favor certain candidates over others. Original advertisement issued on 13.10.2013 and the subsequent re-advertisement on 20.12.2013 led to the petitioner’s exclusion. [Paras 1-4, 7-9]

Respondents’ Justification and Legal Stand – Respondents argued the re-advertisement was in line with updated guidelines from the J&K State Health Society and NRHM, asserting no legal infirmities in the process. They contended that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the fresh advertisement, as he could participate in the new selection process. [Paras 10-14]

Legal Analysis and Precedent Citations – The court examined the legal rights of candidates in such scenarios, referencing several Supreme Court decisions like Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, Asha Kaul v. State of J&K, and others, to determine the rights of candidates in response to advertisement withdrawals and re-advertisements. [Paras 15-21]

Court’s Findings – The court found no vested right of selection/appointment for the petitioner due to his participation in the initial selection process. It held that the re-advertisement notice did not infringe any fundamental, legal, or statutory rights of the petitioner, and thus, was not legally infirm. [Paras 22-25]

Decision – The writ petition challenging the re-advertisement notice was found to be ill-founded and devoid of merit. Consequently, the petition was dismissed along with all connected applications. [Para 26]