Advocate’s Role – Quashing of FIR – Petitioner, a practicing Advocate, questioned revenue officials during an encroachment removal operation – Charged under Sections 341 and 353 of IPC – Petitioner’s demeanor considered in light of his profession – Advocate’s actions aimed at safeguarding client’s rights, not obstructing officials – Continuing the investigation against the petitioner deemed an abuse of the court process – FIR quashed as it pertains to the petitioner. [Para 5-7]

Rule 15 of Order XXXII CPC – Scope of ‘enquiry’ – Suit instituted by a mentally unsound person through a next friend – Applicant’s unwillingness to proceed with the suit – Trial court’s ‘enquiry’ into mental capacity – Certain answers found irrational – Application dismissed – Challenge to the order in revision. [Para 1-2]

Distinction under Rule 15 – ‘A person adjudged of unsound mind’ and ‘a person incapable of protecting his interest by reason of any mental infirmity’ – Judicial inquisition necessary for the former – Enquiry mandated for the latter – Apex Court’s clarification in Kasturibai’s case distinguished – Second limb of Rule 15 discussed. [Para 2-4]

Second limb of Rule 15 – Pragmatic approach required – Examination alone insufficient – Possibility of referring parties to a Medical Board for mental assessment – Extensive jurisdiction of the court under Order XXXII CPC – Sharda v. Dharampal case cited – Court’s power to issue directions for mental evaluation affirmed. [Para 3]

Conclusion – No judicial inquisition conducted – Matter falls under the second limb of Rule 15 – Pragmatic approach not followed – Conclusions based on irrational answers set aside – Original plaintiff’s demise noted – Authority to proceed with the suit through the next friend ends upon the plaintiff’s death – CRP allowed accordingly. [Para 5-6]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of FIR registered under various sections of the IPC. The quashing was sought based on the compromise reached between the parties. [Para 1]

Court Directives – Parties were directed to appear before the trial Court to confirm the genuineness of the compromise. A report was received affirming that some petitioners settled their dispute amicably. [Para 2]

Judicial Philosophy – Discourse on the role of legal systems in resolving social conflicts. Noted that criminal law should consider the wishes of the parties to a dispute, especially where the criminal act does not significantly affect society. [Para 3-5]

Scope of Offenses – Delineated the type of criminal offenses that cannot be quashed on the grounds of a compromise, including those involving intentional loss of life and those having a larger societal impact. [Para 5-7]

Decision – Petition allowed for petitioners No.1 and 3, and dismissed for petitioners No.2 and 4. The FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed for petitioners No.1 and 3 based on the compromise. [Para 8]

Anticipatory Bail – Petition for Grant – Mohammad Rayyan Ansari, the petitioner, seeks anticipatory bail concerning FIR No.143 dated 18.06.2023 under Sections 21(c), 22(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Munak, Karnal, Haryana, following the allegations of selling intoxicating tablets. The petitioner was implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues for the concession of anticipatory bail citing various judgments. [Para 1-3]

Evidence – Disclosure Statement – The petitioner's implication primarily rests on the disclosure statement of a co-accused, Pardeep, revealing the source of intoxicating tablets as Mohammad Rayyan Ansari. Call details between Pardeep and the petitioner were obtained, establishing communication between them. [Para 2]

Criminal Antecedents – Habitual Offender – The State, through a status report, highlights the petitioner's criminal history, including another FIR No.419 dated 17.06.2023 under the NDPS Act, where the petitioner is absconding, opposing the grant of anticipatory bail due to his criminal antecedents. [Para 4]

Judicial Precedents – Anticipatory Bail in NDPS Cases – Various judgments were cited by both parties, deliberating on the granting of anticipatory bail, especially in cases where the accused is implicated based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused and has prior criminal antecedents. [Para 6-11]

Dismissal of Petition – Considering Multiple FIRs and Habitual Offending – The Court, emphasizing on the petitioner's involvement in multiple FIRs and habitual offending, finds the custodial interrogation necessary to effect recoveries and further the investigation. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed, deeming no merit in the present petition. [Para 12-15]

Medical Negligence – Criminal Proceedings – Allegation of death due to hair transplantation performed by the petitioner – Prosecution claims the petitioner’s untrained actions caused the death – Challenge to proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Court examines whether death was a direct result of the treatment given – The complaint filed after a significant delay is considered an afterthought – Court emphasizes the need for gross negligence to attract Section 304A of IPC – No mens rea attributed to the accused – Reference to relevant legal precedents. [Para 3-6]

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing of charges under Section 304(ii) IPC – Examination of the circumstances surrounding the medical procedure – Reports suggest possible negligence and violation of rules – Issue raised regarding the fitness of the medical center and the petitioner’s qualifications – Quashing of charges under Section 482 Cr.P.C. not appropriate as it involves factual disputes – High Court cannot appreciate evidence at this stage – Matter requires thorough inquiry during trial. [Para 12]

Misuse of Official Symbols – Unauthorized use of stickers and artifacts containing emblems and phrases like “Govt of India”, “Government of Tamil Nadu”, “High Court”, and “Police” on private vehicles – Petitioner seeks directions for removal and penal action. [Para 2]

Previous Directions – Reference to order in W.P.No.14697 of 2014, which laid down guidelines for preventing the misuse of official symbols and for penal action against violators. [Para 3-4]

Implementation – Submissions by Additional Public Prosecutor indicating steps taken pursuant to previous order, including the issuance of Circular Memorandum, imposition of fines, and ongoing surveillance. [Para 5-6]

Continuous Monitoring – Recognition that the monitoring of such unauthorized uses is a continuous process and action needs to be taken upon detection. [Para 7]

State Responsibility – Assurance by Additional Government Pleader about the State’s commitment to taking stern action against violators and maintaining compliance with rules and regulations. [Para 8]

Disposition – Writ petition disposed of in light of previous guidelines and steps already taken. No order as to costs. [Para 9]

Civil Appeal – Suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale – Defendant’s contention that the property was sold to K.S.Thankachan, a nominee of the plaintiff, not pleaded in the written statement and not proved by evidence – Variation between pleadings and evidence – Well-settled principle that parties must adhere to their pleadings – Relief cannot be granted on issues not raised in pleadings – Evidence not in conformity with pleadings cannot be relied upon – Trial courts must work within the scope of pleadings and evidence – Appeal dismissed with costs to be borne by respective parties. [Para 4-27]

In the provided judgment, the legal maxim “Secundum allegata et probate” is implicitly referred to. This Latin maxim means “according to what is alleged and proved.” It emphasizes that in legal proceedings, the case presented and the evidence provided should align with what has been alleged or pleaded. If something is not pleaded in the case, it should not be the basis for a decision. This principle is consistent with the requirement that parties must adhere to their pleadings, and evidence should not deviate from what has been specifically pleaded in the case.

Revision Petition – Evidence Closure 

The petitioner-defendant No.1 seeks to overturn the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate's order dated 04.09.2023, which closed his evidence due to his failure to appear in court during the trial. [Para 1-2]

Opportunities Granted – Multiple Opportunities 

The Court remarks that 10 effective opportunities were afforded to the petitioner-defendant No.1 for leading his evidence. However, the defendant availed only three of these opportunities, leading the trial Court to close his evidence. [Para 6]

Health Condition – Genuine Excuse 

The petitioner asserts his non-appearance on 04.09.2023 was on account of genuine health issues, backed by a medical card (Annexure P-5). [Para 3]

Legal Technicalities – Merit-based Decisions 

The Court opines that matters should be decided on their merits, cautioning against non-suiting parties solely based on technicalities. [Para 6]

Decision – Order Set Aside 

The Punjab and Haryana High Court sets aside the trial Court's decision, granting the petitioner one final opportunity to present his evidence, provided he pays ₹5,000 in costs to the plaintiff. [Para 7]

Arbitration and Conciliation – Challenge to Arbitral Award – NHAI challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Dissenting award by one of the arbitrators. NHAI objected to the quantum of damages awarded based on delay in handing over the site. [Para 1-2]

Contractual Agreement – Scope of Concession Agreement – Arbitral Award in the context of a Concession Agreement dated 30.01.2006, related to design, construction, development, finance, operation, and maintenance of a specified section of NH-7 in Tamil Nadu. Contractor awarded different sums against the various claims raised. [Para 2-4]

Defence – Statement of Defence by NHAI – NHAI denied the claims for additional costs, damages, and losses. Argued that the Concession Agreement doesn't provide safeguards for defaults by either of the parties. [Para 5]

Applicability of Contractual Clauses – Dispute over applicability of sub-clauses 13.5.1 and 13.5.2 of the Agreement versus sub-clause 31.2 read with Section 55 and 73 of the Indian Contract Act for calculating damages. [Para 6-8]

Legal Interpretation – Arbitral Tribunal's Award – The tribunal held that sub-clause 31.2 of the Concession Agreement was applicable for material breach by NHAI that affected and delayed the Commercial Operation Date (COD). [Para 9-11]

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference under Section 34 – Court held that its role is not as a court of first appeal and interference with the arbitral award would only be warranted in cases of patent illegality or perversity, in line with the Supreme Court ruling in MMTC Ltd. vs Vedanta Ltd. [Para 12]

Decision – Court’s View – The court found the Arbitral Tribunal's award to be in conformity with the applicable sub-clauses and rejected NHAI's petition challenging the award. [Para 11-12]