Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Disciplinary Authority – Disagreement with Enquiry Report – Natural Justice – Petitioner constable in Railway Protection Special Force terminated despite exoneration by Enquiry Officer – Disciplinary Authority disagreed with enquiry findings without issuing notice or giving opportunity of hearing – Held: Violation of principles of natural justice – Before recording contrary finding, Disciplinary Authority must give tentative reasons for disagreement and allow employee to represent – Termination order set aside [Paras 6–10].

Service Law – Right to Hearing – Rule 154.5 of RPF Rules – Interpretation – Rule allows Disciplinary Authority to differ from Enquiry Officer but does not exclude requirement of hearing – Subjective satisfaction under Rule 154.5 must be based on reconciliation of enquiry report, disagreement reasons, and employee’s response – Omission to hear employee before differing with report causes prejudice and renders decision unsustainable [Paras 7–9].

Remand – Departmental Inquiry – Scope – Appellate Court finds termination illegal for procedural lapse – Held: Appropriate course is to remand matter to Disciplinary Authority to proceed afresh from stage where process was vitiated – Reference to Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari and LIC v. A. Masilamani – Matter remanded to provide hearing and pass fresh order within 3 months [Paras 12–14].

Constitution – Article 309 – Principles of Natural Justice – Applicability – Even where rules are silent, right to hearing must be read into the procedure where Disciplinary Authority proposes to overturn exoneration and impose punishment – Upholds fairness, transparency, and due process in service jurisprudence [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Writ appeal allowed – Order of termination dated 29.03.2019 and subsequent departmental and writ court orders set aside – Matter remanded to Disciplinary Authority to provide opportunity of hearing and pass fresh order within 3 months – No undue adjournments to be sought by parties – Proceedings to be concluded independently and expeditiously.

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheques – Legally Enforceable Liability – Appellant convicted under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of five cheques aggregating Rs.1,41,000/- issued towards commercial dues – Trial Court sentenced appellant to six months RI with fine – Appellant remained untraceable for over two decades – Counsel appointed through DHCLSC and Amicus Curiae for respondent due to non-appearance [Paras 1-4]

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Once cheque issuance and dishonour established, presumption of legal liability arises – Appellant’s defence that cheques were issued blank and no goods were supplied found unsubstantiated – Statement of account and bill proved by complainant – Evidence of bank officials confirmed dishonour due to insufficient funds and stop payment instructions – Appellant’s own Section 313 CrPC statement admitted stop payment and withdrawal of funds – Held: Defence failed to rebut statutory presumption under Section 139 [Paras 5-18]

Sentence – Mitigating Circumstances – Appellant aged over 83 years – Appeal pending for over 20 years – Already undergone 5 months in custody – Held: Conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld – Sentence modified to period already undergone in light of mitigating factors and Section 138’s allowance of fine or sentence or both – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 20-22]

Decision: Conviction affirmed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Bail bonds and sureties discharged – Appeal disposed of [Paras 22-24]

Criminal Law – Revision – Interlocutory vs Intermediate Orders – Petitioner sought direction for registration of FIR alleging conspiracy and murder of son – Magistrate rejected application under Section 156(3) CrPC holding that court itself could inquire into complaint – Revisional Court dismissed revision on ground that order was interlocutory – Held: Order rejecting application under Section 156(3) CrPC is not purely interlocutory as it affects valuable rights of complainant – Revision maintainable under Section 397 CrPC – Matter remanded for fresh decision [Paras 1-4, 13-23]

Police Investigation – Role of Magistrate – Complaint disclosed cognizable offence and warranted police investigation – Mens rea, conspiracy, and alleged tampering of evidence required custodial interrogation and collection of evidence by police – Magistrate erred in refusing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC – Observed: In serious matters involving murder, procedural powers must be exercised to advance justice [Paras 7-10]

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Sessions Court committed jurisdictional error in dismissing revision mechanically without examining nature of impugned order – High Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 to set aside the order and restore revision – Clarified that no opinion on merits of complaint was expressed [Paras 21-23]

Decision: Petition allowed – Order of Sessions Judge dated 09.08.2021 set aside – Criminal revision restored for decision on merits – No opinion expressed on merits of complaint [Paras 23-24]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – “Account Blocked” – Cheques issued by petitioners after Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) had commenced and company accounts taken over by IRP – Cheques returned with remark “ACCOUNT BLOCKED” – Held: Dishonour due to account block caused by statutory moratorium under IBC does not amount to dishonour for insufficiency of funds – Essential ingredients under Section 138 NI Act not met – Offence not made out [Paras 70, 74–79, 81].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Moratorium – Effect on Prosecution – Moratorium declared under Section 14 IBC in April 2019 – Liquidator appointed in December 2019 – Cheques dated September 2020 dishonoured in October 2020 – Held: Directors had lost control over company accounts – No valid authority to issue cheques – Vicarious liability under Section 141 NI Act cannot be imposed where principal offence under Section 138 is not made out [Paras 66–68, 71].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Continuation of proceedings against directors where company is under liquidation – Held: Cheques issued post-moratorium and account dishonour due to statutory prohibition – Complaint and summoning order not sustainable – Proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process of law [Paras 72–73, 82].

Decision: All three complaints under Section 138 NI Act and summoning orders dated 19.01.2021 (CC No. 90/2021), 21.01.2021 (CC No. 113/2021), and 22.01.2021 (CC No. 117/2021) are quashed – Proceedings against petitioners are untenable as offence under Section 138 is not made out due to “Account Blocked” status caused by CIRP and liquidation process – Petitions allowed.

Civil Writ - Natural Resources – Tender-cum-Auction – Quarry Lease for Dunite – Cancellation of Tender – Successful bidders challenged cancellation of tender-cum-auction after being declared highest bidders and payment of EMD – Authorities cancelled tender on finding serious discrepancies in fixation of upset price leading to substantial loss to State revenue – Held: Allocation of natural resources is not a mere commercial transaction but a matter of public trust requiring maximisation of public revenue – State entitled to cancel tender where fixation of upset price was fundamentally flawed and against public interest – No vested right accrues merely by being declared successful bidder [Paras 15–18].

Tender Process – Upset Price – Fixation – Judicial Review – Enquiry revealed that only seigniorage fee was taken as upset price without considering actual market value and net profit of Dunite mineral – Resulted in potential loss of hundreds of crores to State exchequer – Held: When tender conditions or calculations are misapplied resulting in depletion of public revenue, courts must uphold corrective action by the State – Cancellation justified to protect public interest and revenue [Paras 8–10, 15–18].

Public Trust Doctrine – Natural Resources – Revenue Maximisation – State as trustee of mineral wealth obligated to secure best value for public resources – Reliance placed on Natural Resources Allocation, In Re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012 and Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. CEO – Tender cancellation upheld in furtherance of constitutional obligation to protect public wealth [Paras 16–18].

Judicial Precedent – Supreme Court Guidance – Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Odisha – Principle reiterated that misinterpretation of tender conditions diminishing State revenue warrants judicial interference – Applied to uphold cancellation of tender involving mineral resources [Paras 17–18].

Refund – Earnest Money Deposit – Though writ petitions dismissed, petitioners entitled to refund of EMD with interest at 7.5% per annum from date of deposit till repayment – No direction for grant of lease [Para 19].

Environmental Protection – Mining Near Reserved Forest – Court directed that any future tender must strictly comply with Supreme Court directions prohibiting mining within one kilometre from reserved forest boundary as laid down in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India [Para 19].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Cancellation of tender-cum-auction upheld – Respondents directed to refund EMD with interest – Liberty granted to State to issue fresh tender in accordance with law – Petitioners permitted to participate in fresh tender – No costs.

Evidence Law – Secondary Evidence – Photocopy of Alleged Original Document – Admissibility Denied – Petitioners sought to lead secondary evidence of a family consent letter allegedly lost or in possession of defendants – Trial Court rejected application under Section 65 Evidence Act for want of foundational facts – Held: Mere assertion of loss and submission of photocopy without showing when, how and by whom it was made from the original does not satisfy requirements under Section 63(2) or (3) – Application rightly rejected [Paras 4–10]

Evidence Law – Secondary Evidence – Foundational Requirements – Not Optional – No pleading regarding how photocopy was obtained, date or process of copying, or comparison with original – Burden lies on party seeking secondary evidence to establish chain of custody, authenticity, and mechanical accuracy – Petitioners failed to discharge this burden [Paras 5, 9, 10]

Precedents – Secondary Evidence – Photocopies Admissible Only Under Strict Conditions – High Court relied on consistent precedents (Makhanlal v. Balaram, Ramrao Karuji Baghale v. Natthu, Anandram v. Gaura Bai, Aneeta Rajpoot v. Saraswati Gupta) holding that photocopies cannot be admitted without fulfilling statutory criteria – Secondary evidence is exception, not rule [Paras 11–12]

Civil Procedure – Delay in Filing – Equitable Relief Denied – Petition filed 8 months after rejection of application, and only when matter was fixed for final arguments – Delay undermined bona fides of petitioners – No interference warranted under Article 227 [Para 3]

Constitutional Law – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – High Court reiterates settled law that interference under Article 227 is justified only when there is grave miscarriage of justice – No error found in Trial Court’s view rejecting inadmissible secondary evidence – Petition dismissed [Para 13]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No case made out for interference under Article 227 – Trial Court rightly rejected secondary evidence application due to absence of factual foundation – Petitioners to bear costs.

Family Law – Divorce by Mutual Consent – Consent Decree – Enforceability of Property Settlement – Parties entered into detailed consent terms under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act including relinquishment of wife’s rights in jointly owned immovable property – Divorce decree expressly passed “as per terms and conditions stated in the petition” – Held: Terms of settlement form part and parcel of the decree and are fully enforceable in execution – Executing court cannot refuse execution on ground that no separate adjudication or issue was framed [Paras 9–13, 37–38].

Execution Proceedings – Consent Decree – Executing Court Cannot Go Behind Decree – Family Court refused execution holding that no decree for execution of document existed and parties must file suit for specific performance – Held: Executing court has no jurisdiction to go behind or modify a consent decree which has attained finality – Relegating decree-holder to separate suit violates Section 47 CPC and defeats purpose of settlement [Paras 15–16, 29, 31, 35].

Family Courts Act, 1984 – Jurisdiction over Property of Spouses – Wide and Liberal Interpretation – Section 7 Explanation (c) confers jurisdiction on Family Court over disputes relating to property of parties to marriage – Jurisdiction not confined only to properties presented at time of marriage – Family Court competent to pass and execute consent decree dealing with immovable property of spouses [Paras 17–18, 27–30].

Order XXI Rule 34 CPC – Execution of Document – Applicability to Consent Decrees – Where decree incorporates obligation to execute release deed, court can direct execution and registration of document under Order XXI Rule 34(6) – Absence of separate operative direction does not defeat execution when decree is expressly based on compromise terms [Paras 23–25, 39].

Hindu Marriage Act – Section 27 – Property ‘At or About the Time of Marriage’ – Expansive Interpretation – Section 27 is enabling provision and does not restrict jurisdiction of Family Court – Property relatable to marriage though acquired before or after marriage can be dealt with – Narrow interpretation rejected [Para 40].

Consent Decree – Estoppel Against Resiling from Settlement – Respondent-wife accepted and acted upon divorce decree without challenge – Impermissible to later resist execution of property-related obligations forming part of same settlement – One party cannot accept favourable terms and resile from others [Paras 29, 36].

Equitable Directions – Welfare of Minor Child – Appellant voluntarily undertook to create substantial financial security for minor daughter by upfront investment and SIP – Statement accepted and made binding – Subsequent speaking-to-minutes order modified SIP period and beneficiary name accordingly [Paras 42–43; Speaking to Minutes Order dated 13/01/2026].

Decision: First Appeal allowed – Impugned order dismissing execution petition quashed – Executing Court directed to execute consent decree including execution and registration of release deed – Speaking to Minutes allowed modifying investment schedule – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Kidnapping for Ransom – Identification – Conviction set aside – Accused-appellants convicted under Sections 364A and 120B IPC for alleged abduction of victim Anwar Khan and demand of ransom – Trial court sentenced all appellants to life imprisonment – On appeal, High Court found that prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Identification of accused solely in court without prior Test Identification Parade (TIP) inadmissible – All accused allegedly unknown were seen at police station before identification – No material corroboration of in-court identification [Paras 34, 31.1, 31.2]

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility under Section 65B – Call Detail Records (CDRs) and mobile evidence – CDRs and CAFs relied upon by prosecution were unaccompanied by Section 65B certificate – Investigating Officer’s oral assertions on electronic data inadmissible – Held: Mandatory non-compliance with Section 65B renders CDRs and related electronic evidence legally inadmissible [Paras 30.6, 35]

Criminal Procedure – Violation of Section 313 CrPC – Accused not confronted with incriminating material during examination under Section 313 – High Court found this to be fatal – Serious prejudice caused to accused – Conviction based on evidence not properly put to accused is unsustainable in law [Paras 32.2, 32.3]

Circumstantial Evidence – Flaws in Investigation – No recovery of cot or rope – FIR not exhibited – Witness testimonies inconsistent and mostly hearsay – No independent public witness examined – Doctor (PW-8) found no visible injuries – Witnesses admitted to seeing accused at police station prior to trial – Allegations of ransom based on uncorroborated statements – Held: Prosecution failed to prove ingredients of Section 364A IPC or conspiracy under Section 120B IPC beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 30.1–30.9, 33–36]

Judgment – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 364A and 120B IPC set aside – Appellants in custody ordered to be released – Others already on bail – Held: Trial Court’s conviction unsustainable in law and facts – Failure of prosecution to establish guilt – Appreciation of evidence flawed [Paras 36–40]

Decision: Conviction and sentence set aside – All appeals allowed – Accused in custody to be released unless wanted in any other case – Bail bonds of appellants on bail discharged – Acknowledgement of pro bono service by Amicus Curiae Ms. Vaishnavi Singh [Paras 38–42]

Criminal Law  – Quashing of FIR – Compromise – FIR registered under Sections 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 191(3), 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Parties settled dispute voluntarily without coercion – Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) found compromise to be genuine and all parties to be part of the settlement – Complainant no longer interested in pursuing the matter – Held: Dispute was personal in nature with no element of moral turpitude or heinousness – Petitioners were mostly young and continuation of proceedings would be oppressive and serve no useful purpose – FIR and consequential proceedings quashed subject to cost [Paras 1, 5, 9–10].

Criminal Law – Inherent Powers – Section 528 BNSS – Principles Governing Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Reiterated that in non-heinous, personal disputes, High Court may quash FIRs where parties have resolved their issues – Referred to Parbatbhai Aahir and Ramgopal v. State of M.P. – Held: Where possibility of conviction is remote and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, Court justified in exercising inherent powers [Paras 7–8].

Decision: FIR No. 113 dated 09.08.2024 registered at Police Station Cantonment, Amritsar and all consequential proceedings quashed in view of compromise dated 02.06.2025 – Petition allowed – Petitioners directed to deposit ₹7,500 each with DHFWS, Panchkula within two months from receipt of certified copy of the order.