Background – Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction – Family Settlement: The appellant, defendant in a suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction by the respondent-plaintiff, claimed joint ownership of family properties based on an unregistered family settlement dated 10.10.2011 [Paras 1-2].

Trial Court Decision – Partial Decree – Possession Protected: Trial Court partly decreed the suit, protecting the respondent-plaintiff's possession over specific properties while recognizing the joint nature of the properties due to the unregistered settlement [Para 4].

Appellate Court’s Ruling – Dismissal of Appeal and Cross-Objections: First Appellate Court dismissed both the appeal by the appellants and cross-objections by the respondent-plaintiff, upholding Trial Court's decision [Para 4].

High Court Findings – Unregistered Family Settlement – Implication on Ownership: High Court noted the family settlement required registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Its unregistered status implied that the properties remained joint, negating claims to exclusive ownership [Para 7].

Admitted Possession – Protection Upheld: Since the appellants admitted the respondent-plaintiff's possession over certain properties, the Courts' protection of such possession was justified. The appellants failed to establish their exclusive possession [Para 8].

Conclusion – Dismissal of Second Appeal: High Court found no merit in the appeal, no substantial question of law arose, leading to dismissal of the second appeal [Para 9].

Referred Cases: Not mentioned in provided text.

Factual Background – Complaints were made by the petitioner under Sections 498A and 406 IPC against her husband and in-laws, alleging severe demands for dowry and subsequent physical and mental cruelty after her marriage in 1998 – The FIR was filed in December 2002 and charge-sheet filed in July 2004 – Magistrate took cognizance on the same day the charge-sheet was filed [Paras 2-3].

Quashing of Cognizance under Limitation Period – Criminal Miscellaneous Case – Delhi High Court sets aside Sessions Court judgment – Accused discharged from charges under Section 498A/34 IPC challenged – Held, the cognizance was not time-barred; period calculated from the date of filing the complaint, not the date of cognizance by the Magistrate – Following Supreme Court precedents, cognizance by Magistrate under Sections 498A/406 IPC valid despite delay in FIR registration. [Paras 12-18]

Role of Police Officer as Complainant – Analyzing bias against police officers in domestic violence cases – Held, the status of a complainant as a police officer does not negate the possibility of being a victim of domestic violence; stereotypes about professional toughness dismissed – Importance of impartial judicial assessment without bias reiterated. [Paras 24-30]

Gender Neutrality in Judicial Decision-Making – Discussed the need for gender neutrality in judiciary – Highlighted the misconception that women in authoritative roles cannot be victims of domestic abuse – Emphasized on judicial education to combat hidden biases and uphold gender neutrality in legal proceedings. [Paras 31-36]

Decision – Reinstatement of Charges – Delhi High Court reverses Session Court’s discharge of accused – Cognizance of charges under Sections 498A/34 IPC upheld – Case remanded back to the trial court for continuation of proceedings. [Paras 45-49]

Money Laundering – PMLA – Discharge of Accused – Respondents discharged by Special Judge under PMLA post-acquittal in predicate offence (IPC sections) – High Court held discharge appropriate as PMLA charges contingent on commission of scheduled offence – Acquittal in scheduled offence nullifies basis for money laundering charges – Special Judge's order upheld, confirming no money laundering offence if no scheduled offence proven [Paras 1-33].

Legal Principle – Continuation of Proceedings – Appeal Pending – Petitioner argued pending appeal against acquittal in predicate offence should prevent discharge under PMLA – High Court rejected argument, stating discharge valid until acquittal overturned in appeal – Properties attached under PMLA to be released, with option to reattach if acquittal reversed [Paras 13-30].

Criminal Law – Presumption of Innocence – Reinforcement Post-Acquittal – Filing or pendency of appeal does not negate acquittal effects – Presumption of innocence remains until higher court conviction – Attached properties not deemed proceeds of crime post-acquittal [Paras 17-19, 29-30].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Special Judge’s order discharging respondents under PMLA upheld – Attached properties to be released – ED retains right to revive proceedings if acquittal in predicate offence reversed on appeal [Paras 32-33].

Classification of Employees as Workmen – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(s) – Interpretation by Industrial Tribunal – Challenge in High Court – High Court upholds Tribunal’s classification of certain employees as ‘workmen’ under the Act. Tribunal found that these employees primarily performed manual, skilled, and unskilled work, contrary to petitioner’s claim of them engaging in managerial or supervisory roles. High Court confirms Tribunal’s finding that the duties of the employees fit within the definition of ‘workman’ under the Act, rejecting the argument of managerial or supervisory duties. [Paras 1-22]

Nature of Work Performed – Determinative Factor in Employee Classification – The court emphasizes the importance of the actual work performed by the employees, rather than their designations or bands, in determining their status as workmen. Evidence demonstrated that the employees were engaged in manual and skilled tasks, with no substantial supervisory control over other employees, fitting the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. [Paras 11, 18, 20]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – The High Court, upon thorough examination of the material on record, finds no ground to interfere with the Industrial Tribunal’s order. The classification of the respondents as workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is held to be justified and in accordance with the law. The writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s order is dismissed. [Paras 21-22]

Attempted Murder Conviction and Appeals – Conviction of appellants Bhima, Ravi, and Munesh under Sections 307/34 IPC for a stabbing incident in 2011 – Sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and fines [Paras 1-4].

Suspension of Sentence Applications – Filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. – Based on prolonged trial, incarceration, and claims of false implication – Arguments drawing from jurisprudence on suspension of sentences in prolonged appeal processes [Paras 5-7, 13-15].

Prosecution's Opposition – Emphasized seriousness of offenses and conviction based on substantial evidence – Distinguished between pre-conviction bail and post-conviction suspension of sentence considerations [Para 10].

Court's Evaluation – Examined material contradictions in prosecution's evidence, differences in injury assessments, non-recovery of the weapon, and delays in appeal hearings – Acknowledged appellants' young age at the time of the incident, clean antecedents, and the hardship of prolonged trial [Para 16].

Decision on Suspension – Considering Supreme Court precedents and facts, the court suspended the sentences, releasing appellants on bail with conditions such as not leaving the country without permission and avoiding criminal activities [Paras 16-18].

 Modification of interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 - Original order directed the Husband to pay Rs.66,000/- per month cumulatively to Wife and daughters following a divorce petition - Husband seeks modification citing elder daughter’s majority and employment in the USA, reduction in his salary, and personal financial constraints, including increased rent and medical expenses - Wife opposes, highlighting her lack of independent income, health issues, and children's needs - Court’s examination of Husband's financial records from 2018 and 2022 reveals minor salary variation and significant future savings, undermining his claims of reduced financial capacity - The Court modifies maintenance to Rs.44,000/- per month from July 2023, considering elder daughter's employment - Directs clearance of arrears within four weeks and urges Family Court for expeditious conclusion of divorce proceedings.

Eviction Order Challenge - Petitioner Kulwant Singh challenging eviction order due to non-filing of application for leave to contest under Section 14(1)(e) - Respondent Vikas Ahuja filed eviction petition - Petitioner did not vacate the subject premises post expiry of tenancy agreement, leading to the present dispute - Issue revolves around the service of summons and whether the petitioner's written statement should be treated as an application for leave to contest [Paras 1-2, 3, 7].

Service of Summons and Legal Proceedings - Summons initially issued in wrong format - Later correctly served through Anil Kumar, allegedly the brother of petitioner - Petitioner's denial of relationship with Anil Kumar and non-service claim rejected by Additional Rent Controller - Trial court records indicate multiple adjournments and absence of petitioner from hearings [Paras 2.2-2.4, 6-6.14].

Admissibility of Written Statement as Leave to Contest - Petitioner's counsel's argument for treating written statement as application for leave to contest, based on precedent in Rambir Singh vs Smt. Balwant Kaur Choudhary & Anr - Court distinguishes present case from the precedent - Petitioner's failure to request treatment of written statement as application for leave to contest noted [Paras 7, 8, 10].

Court's Decision and Reasoning - Court finds no infirmity in the impugned eviction order - Non-truthful stand of the petitioner regarding service of summons - Consistent avoidance of service and non-compliance with procedural requirements lead to dismissal of petition and pending applications [Paras 9, 11, 12].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Medical Impersonation and Forgery – The High Court of Delhi deliberated on the grant of anticipatory bail to a practitioner of Unani medicine accused of impersonating an MBBS doctor and committing document forgery in relation to medical practice. The case revolved around the death of a patient post-childbirth, with allegations of using a forged MBBS degree and practicing modern medicine illegally. [Para 1-5, 26-28]

Qualifications and Practice of Unani Medicine – Consideration – The court examined the credentials of the applicant, a Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery (BUMS) degree holder from Jamia Hamdard Delhi. The defense argued that the applicant was authorized to conduct normal deliveries as per the guidelines of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, and had significant experience in Unani medical practice. [Para 6-7, 11]

Allegations of Impersonation and Forgery – Evaluation – The prosecution accused the applicant of impersonating an MBBS doctor and using a forged stamp, highlighting discrepancies in the registration numbers used and absence of necessary qualifications for prescribing certain medications. The court assessed these allegations to determine the applicability of relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code. [Para 3, 16-18, 27]

Considerations for Granting Anticipatory Bail – Analysis – The court considered various factors, including the seriousness of the charges, the need for effective investigation, the likelihood of the applicant’s availability for trial, and the balance between personal liberty and the public interest, in deciding the anticipatory bail application. Reliance was placed on the principles laid down in landmark judgments such as Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others. [Para 29-32]

Decision – Anticipatory bail application dismissed due to the gravity of the allegations and the necessity for effective custodial interrogation to verify the claims and collect material evidence. [Paras 33-34]

Petitioners' Rights to Life and Liberty Under Live-in Relationship – Judicial Precedence and Constitutional Rights – Held – Petitioners, despite being in a non-marital live-in relationship, are entitled to protection of their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court, relying on past judgments, emphasizes that the legal recognition or status of the relationship does not diminish the right to protection. Petitioners' fundamental rights upheld irrespective of their marital status or age of majority. [Paras 2-4, 9, 10, 13]

Directions to Police for Protection – Assessment of Threat Perception – Held – Respondent No.2, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, directed to consider the petitioners' representation for protection and assess any threat to their life and liberty. Appropriate action to be taken in accordance with the law, ensuring the safety of the petitioners, reflecting the Court's commitment to safeguard individual rights under the Constitution. [Para 14]

Judicial Approach towards Non-Conventional Relationships – Analysis – Held – The Court demonstrates a progressive approach in acknowledging and protecting individuals in live-in relationships. Recognizes the evolving societal norms and extends legal protection irrespective of traditional marital boundaries, underscoring the primacy of individual liberty and rights over societal conventions. [Paras 8-10, 12, 13]

Decision – Protection of Life and Liberty in Live-in Relationship – Court grants protection to the petitioners, living in a live-in relationship, directing the police to assess and respond to their safety concerns. The judgment reiterates the sanctity of life and liberty under the Constitution, extending its protection to relationships outside the traditional marital framework. [Paras 14-15]