Appeal Against FIR Order Under SC/ST Act – Challenging order for FIR against ACP Bijender Singh under SC/ST Act for alleged misconduct during investigation of FIR No. 261/2019 – Original case involved parking dispute between complainant and police personnel, leading to allegations of atrocity under the SC/ST Act. [Paras 1, 2]

Investigation Conduct and Chargesheet Filing – Appellant, as Investigation Officer, filed chargesheet under SC/ST Act and IPC without arresting accused, citing Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar – Complainant's application against appellant for not supplying chargesheet copy and not arresting accused. [Paras 3-8, 18-20, 66-69]

Administrative Enquiry Requirement – Emphasis on necessity for administrative enquiry before initiating criminal proceedings against a public servant – Appellant exonerated in administrative enquiry. [Paras 11-15, 43-47, 57]

Natural Justice Principles – Allegations of violation of principles of natural justice due to absence of hearing opportunity for appellant. [Paras 13, 14, 57]

Court's Observation on Investigation Role – Court's analysis on limits of judicial interference in investigation process – Reinforcement that investigation is police’s domain, and court's role begins post chargesheet filing. [Paras 62-65]

Order – Impugned order for FIR against appellant set aside – Emphasis on appropriate use of SC/ST Act provisions and judicial prudence in handling disputes involving public servants. [Paras 76-80]

of the arresting authority must be based on pertinent material, and compliance with procedural safeguards is essential to uphold the legality of an arrest. [Para 61-66]

Constitutional Law – Right to Liberty and Fair Procedure – The Court reiterated the constitutional guarantee of individual liberty and the requirement for a fair and transparent procedure in matters of arrest and detention. It was held that non-compliance with mandatory legal requirements in the process of arrest infringes upon the fundamental rights of the individuals involved. The Court stressed the need for law enforcement Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC and PMLA 2002 – Illegal Arrest and Detention – Two petitions under Section 482 CrPC by Dilbag Singh and Kulwinder Singh were adjudicated, concerning their arrests under the PMLA 2002 – The legality of arrest orders, arrest memos, and remand orders was assessed in light of the Supreme Court’s rulings – Petitioners claimed they were illegally detained and arrested in violation of PMLA provisions [Para 1, 3-7].

Criminal Procedure – Illegal Detention and Arrest – Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 – The Court analyzed the compliance of Section 19 of the PMLA 2002 in the context of the arrest of the petitioners. The Court held that the arresting authorities failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 19, resulting in unlawful detention and illegal arrest of the petitioners. The Court observed that the authorities did not provide written grounds of arrest immediately after arrest and failed to forward the relevant materials to the Adjudicating Authority as mandated under Section 19(2). [Para 55-66]

Judicial Scrutiny of Arrest Procedure – The Court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to statutory procedures in arrest cases, particularly under special acts like the PMLA. It was noted that individual liberty is a paramount right, and any arrest made in violation of prescribed legal procedures is liable to be set aside. The Court pointed out that the subjective satisfaction agencies to observe due diligence and procedural safeguards in executing their powers, especially under stringent statutes like the PMLA. [Para 3, 22-25]

Criminal Procedure – Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002 – Territorial Jurisdiction and Compliance – The Court deliberated on two primary issues concerning Section 19(3) of the PMLA: the lack of judicial scrutiny regarding compliance with Section 19 in remand orders, and whether there was any basis to justify the Gurugram Court's jurisdiction prior to the remand on 09.01.2024. The Court found that the Special Court failed to appropriately apply its mind to ensure compliance with Section 19, including Section 19(3), and that the initial remand lacked a proper territorial jurisdiction basis. The Court recognized that the final decision on jurisdiction should be based on the entirety of the evidence presented during the trial. [Para 67-68]

Judicial Scrutiny and Application of Mind in Remand Orders – The Court emphasized the necessity of judicial scrutiny and proper application of mind by the Special Court in remand orders, particularly in ensuring compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 19 of the PMLA. The Court observed that a lack of such scrutiny in the initial stages renders subsequent proceedings invalid. [Para 67, 73-74]

Illegal Detention and Subsequent Proceedings – The Court held that the detention of the petitioners from 04.01.2024 to 08.01.2024 amounted to illegal arrest, which subsequently led to the violation of the provisions of Section 19 read with Section 167 of the CrPC. The Court concluded that all orders, including the remand orders arising out of the illegal arrest, were invalid and set aside. [Para 76(b)]

Violation of PMLA Provisions – The Court found violations of both Section 19(2) and Section 19(1) of the PMLA, deeming the actions of the Enforcement Directorate, including the arrest and remand orders, as illegal and warranting setting aside. [Para 76(c-d)]

Decision – Quashing of Arrest, Remand Orders, and Consequential Actions – Based on the findings, the Court allowed both petitions, quashed the arrest orders, arrest memos, remand orders, and all consequential orders – held - the arrest and subsequent remand orders as void due to non-compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA. It was held that the detention of the petitioners from the date of their initial confinement until their formal arrest was illegal, and all subsequent actions based on the illegal arrest were set aside. The Court ordered the release of the petitioners and directed the authorities to adhere strictly to legal provisions in future actions. [Para 53, 66 – 76, 78]

Transfer of Investigation – CBI – Petition seeking transfer of investigation to CBI due to alleged bias and interference by influential respondents – Court finds investigation biased and aimed at weakening prosecution's case – Directions for CBI investigation issued [Paras 1-19].

False Affidavits and Fraud – Accusations against Amarjeet Kaur and her daughters for filing false affidavits and obtaining compensation fraudulently – Daughters not inculpated despite prima facie involvement – Role of influential respondent No. 5 and Deepinder Singh Gill, Advocate not investigated – Court orders detailed investigation by CBI [Paras 6-13, 17-19].

Judicial Precedents – References to various Supreme Court judgments highlighting conditions under which CBI investigation can be ordered – Emphasis on fairness and absence of bias in investigations – Power of Constitutional Courts under Article 226 and Section 482 Cr.P.C. affirmed [Paras 14-17].

Decision:
Petition allowed – Investigation in FIR No. 207 dated 15.10.2022 to be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – Investigation to be completed within 6 months – Directions for fair and unbiased investigation issued [Paras 19-20].

Incident and Conviction Background – Durga Prasad’s conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC for causing death by head injuries with brick pieces in a dispute over drainage clearing – Trial court’s life imprisonment sentence – Appellants challenged the judgment. [Paras 1-3, 36]

Prosecution Evidence and Testimonies – Reliance on testimonies of eyewitnesses (PW1 and PW2), medical evidence (PW5), and other formal witnesses – Eyewitnesses recounted the incident, and medical officer confirmed the fatal injuries. [Paras 4, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 15-17, 19-21, 23-24, 30-31, 35]

Defence’s Contention and Lack of Evidence – Defence’s argument of accidental fall leading to injuries – No evidence produced by the defense to substantiate their claim. [Paras 5-6, 22, 25]

Assessment of Medical Evidence – Evaluation of injuries and their causation – Inferences drawn from post-mortem and medical reports – Determination of the nature of injuries and their impact. [Paras 8, 18, 20, 32-33]

Legal Principles on ‘Intention’ and ‘Knowledge’ – Analysis of the intent and knowledge aspects under IPC Sections 299, 300, 302, 304, 323, 324, 325 – Reference to Supreme Court precedents. [Paras 26-31, 34-35]

Modified Conviction – Alteration of conviction from Section 302/34 IPC to Section 325/34 IPC – Sentencing to three years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000, with compensation to the victim’s family. [Paras 36-37]

Discharge of Bail and Compliance – Instructions for surrender, discharge of bail, and compliance with the modified judgment. [Paras 37-38]

Decision: Appeal allowed in part with a modified conviction and sentence.

NDPS - Bail - Gurpreet Singh, arrested for possession of 26.790 kgs of Cannabis, seeks bail citing procedural irregularities and trial delays [Paras 1, 5, 7, 16, 25].

Bail Justification on Grounds of Trial Delay – Applicant's counsel arguing for bail based on significant delay in trial progress, citing various Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents emphasizing the importance of speedy trial. [Para 5, 16-21, 24]

Sampling Procedure Non-Compliance – Allegations of prosecution's non-compliance with the prescribed sampling procedure for narcotics, as per Standing Orders No.1/88 and 1/89, leading to a contention of non-fulfillment of stringent bail standards under Section 37 of NDPS Act. [Para 6, 14-15]

State's Counter-Arguments – Emphasis on the seriousness of NDPS Act offences and the necessity of stringent bail conditions under Section 37. Arguments against considering trial delay as a sole reason for granting bail and asserting that Standing Orders are advisory, not mandatory. [Para 8-11]

Court's Analysis and Decision – Court acknowledging the necessity to satisfy conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act for bail but recognizing the rights under Article 21 for protection of liberty in face of trial delay and non-compliance with sampling procedure. Applicant granted bail considering these factors and set conditions. [Para 12-15, 22-28, 29]

Bail Granted - Under strict conditions including not leaving the country without court permission, appearing for hearings, and not indulging in criminal activity [Para 29].

Unconditional Stay on Arbitral Award – Granting – Arbitration Petition for Exclusive Marketing Agreement – Arbitrator awarded damages without proof of actual loss, contradicting settled law – Court finds award perversely and patently illegal, granting an unconditional stay. [Paras 1-37]

Principles of Damages in Contractual Breaches – Applicability and Proof – Held – In claims for damages, proof of actual loss is essential – Arbitrator’s decision awarding damages without such proof contravenes established principles, rendering award legally flawed. [Paras 32-33, 36-37]

Marketing and Distribution Agreement (MDA) – Arbitral Award Analysis – Damages for non-purchase of product under MDA – Award based on product price, not actual loss – Award fails to consider necessary deductions such as manufacturing costs. [Paras 6-7, 34]

Decision – Unconditional Stay on Arbitral Award – Arbitral award granting damages without proving actual loss found patently illegal and perverse – High Court stays award unconditionally, expedites hearing of the arbitration petition. [Paras 37-40]

Dowry Death – Acquittal – Lack of Evidence of Unnatural Death – Appeal Dismissed – The trial court acquitted the accused of dowry death charges under Section 304-B IPC, as the prosecution failed to establish that the deceased’s death was unnatural – The High Court upheld the acquittal, noting that no post-mortem was conducted and there was no substantial evidence of harassment or cruelty soon before Sonia’s death, as required under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act [Paras 18-27].

Presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act – Applicability Denied – The Court held that the presumption under Section 113-B was not applicable, as the evidence of cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry demands was vague and unsubstantiated – The failure to conduct a post-mortem examination weakened the prosecution's case regarding unnatural death [Paras 22-23].

Audio Recording as Evidence – Inadmissibility – The tape recording submitted as evidence of the accused’s alleged confession was held inadmissible due to the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act – The content was also unclear and inconsistent with the transcript provided by the prosecution [Paras 25-26].

Decision: The appeals and revision were dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was affirmed. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court's judgment of acquittal.

Criminal Law - Petitioner's Arrest and Prosecution – Seizure of foreign liquor leading to petitioner’s arrest – Allegation of unlawful possession, storage, and non-payment of duty – Raid by Bidhannagar Excise Department on 31.10.2018 – Prosecution under Bengal Excise Act, 1909 and West Bengal (Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1998. [Paras 5-7, 15]

Defense of the Petitioner – Liquor as free samples for promotion, not for sale – Import and storage by Duomo Distribution Pvt. Ltd., petitioner's company – Contention that no excise duty applicable on non-sale items. [Paras 8-10, 17, 20-21]

Legal Principles for Prosecution of Company Directors – Supreme Court Precedents - Reliance on Supreme Court decisions establishing that directors or principal officers cannot be held vicariously liable for offences unless the company itself is part of the proceedings. Emphasized the mandatory prosecution of a company for holding its directors or officers liable. [Para 12, 30]

Analysis of Facts and Evidence – Seizure of Liquor and Defence of Samples - Scrutiny of the prosecution's claim of illegal possession, storage, and transport of foreign liquor against the petitioner's defence that the seized liquor was not for sale but samples, as evidenced by supporting documents. [Para 15-27]

Lack of Company as an Accused – Violation of Legal Procedure - absence of the company as an accused in the proceedings, which is a legal requirement for prosecuting its directors or principal officers, as per Section 46B of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909. [Para 29-35]

Decision – Quashing of prosecution report and proceedings against petitioner – Absence of company as an accused – Proceedings deemed not in accordance with law and an abuse of the process. [Paras 36-38]

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order for FIR registration and its subsequent quashing – Dismissal of petition based on detailed investigation and material collected – Observations made not to be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case. [Para 9, 16]

Criminal Breach of Trust and Conspiracy – Sections 406/120B IPC – Allegations of dishonest inducement and retention of payment for air tickets – Detailed investigation substantiating the charges against the petitioners – Quashing of FIR and chargesheet not warranted. [Para 11, 14, 16]

Judicial Vigilance – Magistrate's duty in scrutinizing allegations and issuing directions – Necessity of application of judicial mind in matters of criminal complaints – Reference to precedent cases outlining the principles for Magistrates' approach to criminal complaints. [Para 4, 5]

Civil Nature of Disputes – Differentiation between civil and criminal disputes – Consideration of the nature of the dispute in the context of criminal proceedings – Rejection of the argument that the dispute is purely civil based on the facts of the case. [Para 14]

Investigation Process – Role of investigating authorities in collecting evidence – Collection of statements and material demonstrating the commission of alleged offenses – Importance of thorough investigation in criminal proceedings. [Para 14]

Power of High Court – Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC – High Court's authority to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure justice – Criteria for exercise of such powers in the context of criminal cases. [Para 15]

Trial Proceedings – Directions to expedite trial proceedings – Order for timely completion of trial in light of the age of the FIR. [Para 20]

Decision – Petition dismissed, FIR and chargesheet upheld – Court directed expedited trial proceedings, clarifying observations made were only for adjudicating the present petition, not a comment on merits of the case [Paras 16-23].