Criminal Appeal – Dowry Death and Dowry Demand – Appellant convicted under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act for dowry death of his wife – Prosecution proved harassment and cruelty for additional dowry soon before death – Sentences for both offenses to run concurrently. [Paras 1-58]

Dowry Death – Essential Ingredients – Death within seven years of marriage under abnormal circumstances – Proved consumption of poison leading to death – Presence of ante-mortem injuries indicating physical harassment – Satisfies proximity test for 'soon before her death' requirement in Section 304-B IPC. [Paras 32-36, 50-52]

Harassment and Cruelty for Dowry – Prosecution established continuous harassment for additional dowry – Demands for money to purchase lands – Evidence from relatives and mediators corroborating dowry demands and physical and mental harassment soon before death. [Paras 38-42]

Sentence – Conviction under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Rigorous imprisonment for seven years for Section 304-B and simple imprisonment for one year for Section 4 of D.P. Act – Sentences to run concurrently. [Para 55]

Decision – High Court upheld trial court's conviction and sentence of appellant – Appeal dismissed – Directed registry to certify judgment to trial court for execution of sentence. [Paras 56-58]

Civil Procedure – Maintainability of Suit – Suit challenging alleged partition as illegal and void, questioning lawfulness of compromise in earlier suit – Earlier suit still pending, no decree based on compromise – Held, subsequent suit not barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC – Dismissal of suit by Trial Court for lack of jurisdiction set aside, suit restored for adjudication on merits. [Para 13-15]

Compromise in Litigation – Suit challenging alleged partition based on compromise in prior pending suit – No decree passed in earlier suit based on compromise at time of filing subsequent suit – Held, subsequent suit maintainable, not barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC – Observations made solely for decision's correctness, not to influence pending appeal in related matter. [Para 13-15]

Jurisdiction – Suit filed for declaring alleged partition in earlier suit as illegal, invalid, and void – Trial Court dismissed suit citing lack of jurisdiction due to bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC – Held, dismissal incorrect as no decree based on compromise in earlier suit when subsequent suit filed – Subsequent suit restored for adjudication on merits. [Para 13-15]

Decision – Trial Court's order dismissing suit for lack of jurisdiction set aside – Suit challenging lawfulness of compromise in earlier suit restored for adjudication on merits – Held, no bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC when earlier suit pending without decree on compromise – Parties to bear their own costs, pending interim applications disposed of. [Para 15]

NDPS - Violation of Sampling Procedure – Bail Granted – Accused arrested for possession of 24kg+ Ganja/Marijuana – Sampling procedure in violation of Standing Orders No.1/88 and 1/89 – Non-compliance raised reasonable doubt about guilt – Previous judgments cited for similar decisions in cases of procedural violation. [Paras 6-7, 19, 21, 28-29]

Section 37 NDPS Act – Rigorous Bail Conditions – Court must be satisfied with reasonable grounds for believing accused is not guilty – In this case, procedural non-compliance led to belief of not guilty. [Para 8, 27-29]

Impact of Non-Compliance on Trial – Non-compliance of mandatory procedures in NDPS Act raises reasonable grounds for belief of not guilty – Sampling method critical for case’s merit – Court’s decision not a comment on overall merit. [Paras 27-31]

Decision: Applications granted – Accused to be released on bail subject to conditions – Personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with local surety – Various conditions imposed including not leaving country without court permission, appearing for hearings, maintaining working mobile numbers, and not indulging in criminal activity or contacting witnesses. [Paras 30-33]

Application for Quashing FIR – Settlement of Marital Dispute – Quashing of FIR C.R. No.11191008220309 under Sections 498A, 323, 294(b), 114 of IPC and Sections 3, 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act due to amicable settlement between parties – Complaint originally filed by respondent No.2 against petitioner for dowry harassment. [Paras 1-5, 6]

Mutual Settlement – Affidavit by Complainant – Both parties resolved dispute amicably during proceedings – Complainant submitted affidavit stating no objection to quashing of proceedings. [Para 6]

Legal Principle on Quashing Proceedings – Reference to Supreme Court decisions – Criteria for exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Consideration of whether continuation of proceedings serves any purpose post-settlement. [Paras 7-9]

Application Allowed – Quashing of Impugned FIR and Consequential Proceedings – Court finds further proceedings unnecessary and harassment to petitioner – Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. allowed, quashing FIR and related proceedings. [Paras 8-10]

Release of Applicant – Direction to release the applicant from jail if not required in any other case. [Para 11]

Criminal Law - Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant Without Summons – Petitioner challenges the non-bailable warrant issued against him without a prior summons based on allegations of non-cooperation with the investigation. Cited Satendar Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2021 (10) SCC 773] [Para 2].

Categories of Offences and Issuance of Warrants – Case falls under Category-A as per guidelines in Satendar Kumar Antil's case, applicable to offenses punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less. The guideline necessitates issuing an ordinary summons first, then a bailable warrant upon non-appearance, and a non-bailable warrant only as a last resort [Para 5-6].

Improper Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant – The court observed that the learned Magistrate hastily concluded that the presence of the accused (A3) could not be ensured without issuing a non-bailable warrant. The correct procedure of issuing a summons, followed by a bailable warrant, was not adhered to [Para 9].

Direction for Reconsideration of Warrant and Bail Application – The High Court opined that the non-bailable warrant issued to the petitioner was improper. The petitioner expressed willingness to appear before the Magistrate, and the court directed that if the petitioner files an application for the recall of the warrant and for bail, it should be considered positively on the same day, provided it is filed within 15 days from the date of the order [Para 10-11].

Writ Petition for Quashing Order – Petitioner sought quashing of the order passed by State Information Commission, Haryana, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, which denied information requested under the Right to Information Act – Petitioner filed a writ in the nature of certiorari for non-compliance with the judgment in Rajwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP-17672-2023). [Para 1]

Non-compliance with Established Legal Principles – State Information Commission passed the impugned order without adhering to the guidelines laid down in Rajwinder Singh's case, which requires specific findings by appellate authorities under the Right to Information Act – Petitioner argued that the order was cryptic and non-speaking. [Para 2, 5]

Guidelines for Appellate Authorities under RTI – The High Court in Rajwinder Singh’s case provided directives for first and second appellate authorities under the RTI Act, emphasizing the need for detailed, point-wise decisions on information requests, including reasons for non-disclosure if applicable. [Para 5]

Direction for Fresh Decision – High Court set aside the impugned order for being inconsistent with legal precedents – Directed the State Information Commission, Haryana to redecide the petitioner's appeal within three months, in accordance with the principles laid down in Rajwinder Singh’s case. [Para 6]

Criminal Appeal – Regular Bail in NDPS Act Case – Petitioner seeking regular bail for possession of marginally higher than commercial quantity of narcotic substance (Alprazolam) – Arrested and previously granted interim bail but later declared a proclaimed offender – Re-arrested and incarcerated for over 7 months. [Para 1, 2, 6]

Bail Principles – Bail as a rule and jail as an exception – Emphasis on the sanctity of individual liberty and the presumption of innocence, in line with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in 'State of Rajasthan v. Balchand' and 'Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India'. Consideration of the accused's right to a speedy trial and circumstances of each case for bail decision. [Para 10-12]

Petitioner’s Circumstances – Petitioner not involved in other criminal cases of similar nature – Undergone incarceration of 7 months and 9 days – Out of 9 prosecution witnesses, 6 already examined. [Para 5, 8, 15]

Decision – Granting of regular bail to petitioner considering his previous interim bail, duration of incarceration, and marginal excess in narcotic substance possession over commercial quantity – Bail granted on furnishing of bail and surety bond, with a warning against indulgence in similar offences. [Para 16, 17]

Petition for Pension - Petitioner, a retired employee of respondent-bank, seeks pension from 01.06.2005 under the bank's pension policy, having submitted an application which is allegedly disregarded by the respondents. [Para 1-2]

Territorial Jurisdiction Questioned - Respondents argue the High Court of Punjab and Haryana lacks territorial jurisdiction as the petitioner retired from Mumbai office and resides in Canada, while mistakenly impleading Calcutta office in the petition. [Para 3]

Jurisdiction Analysis - The Court, relying on the Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim precedent (2007) 11 SCC 335, emphasizes that "part of cause of action" must arise within its jurisdiction to invoke writ jurisdiction, which is not fulfilled in this case. [Paras 5-6, 12]

Precedents Cited - References to the Kerala High Court Full Bench decision in The Registrar, Indian Maritime University vs. K.G. Viswanathan and another; 2014 SCC OnLine Ker 21221, and M/s Vijay K. Jairath And Co. Versus Union of India and Another; CWP No.12420 of 2008 regarding territorial jurisdiction. [Paras 7-8]

Dismissal of Petition - The Court concludes that no cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction, rendering the petition non-maintainable, but grants liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies as permissible by law. [Paras 9-11]

Regular Bail – Grant of Bail in FIR No. 122, dated 20.06.2020, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC – Petitioner seeks regular bail – No specific allegations against petitioner in FIR – Based on circumstantial evidence and no recovery from petitioner – Incarceration of over 3 years – Regular bail granted. [Paras 1, 3, 16]

Circumstantial Evidence – Reliance on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession in case against petitioner – No direct evidence implicating petitioner in the crime. [Paras 6, 7, 16]

Length of Incarceration – Consideration of over 3 years of incarceration for the petitioner – Impact on decision to grant bail. [Paras 9, 15, 16]

Legal Principles for Bail – Reference to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing 'Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception' – Consideration of the individual's liberty and societal interest in bail decisions – Application of these principles in granting bail to the petitioner. [Paras 10-13, 16]

Future Conduct and Bail Conditions – Clarity on cancellation of bail for future similar offences – Mention that observations in the order do not affect the merits of the trial. [Para 17]

Final Order – Bail granted due to lack of specific allegations in FIR against the petitioner, circumstantial nature of evidence, no recovery from the petitioner, and prolonged incarceration of 3 years, 7 months, and 3 days – Release on furnishing bail and surety bond [Para 16].