Criminal Law – Quashing - Forgery and Cheating – Non-compliance with mandatory provisions – Section 156(3) of CrPC – Quashing of Proceedings - Petitioners challenged the criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, and 471 of the IPC, arguing non-compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC during the filing of the complaint under Section 156(3) – Held: The mandatory requirements of prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) were not met, as required by the precedent set in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. – Thus, the criminal proceedings were quashed for non-compliance with these provisions [Paras 1-3, 8-10, 20-21].

Affidavit Requirement under Section 156(3) CrPC – Legal Compliance - The Court reiterated that applications under Section 156(3) must be supported by a sworn affidavit, as highlighted in Priyanka Srivastava – In the present case, no such affidavit was filed, leading to the quashing of the complaint [Paras 15, 18-19].

Retrospective Application of Priyanka Srivastava Guidelines – Clarification - The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Priyanka Srivastava guidelines do not apply retrospectively – Held: The provisions in question were codified long before the petition was filed, and the judgment merely reaffirmed existing requirements – Hence, the argument of non-retrospective application was dismissed [Paras 12-14, 16].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Abuse of Process - The Court found that continuing the proceedings without compliance with the statutory provisions would amount to an abuse of process – Thus, the criminal proceedings were quashed [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law – Regular Bail – Long Pre-trial Incarceration – Speedy Trial – The petitioner, charged with offenses under Sections 302, 307, 324, 379, 411, 483, 506, 34, and 120-B of the IPC, sought bail after being in custody for over 4 years. Only 5 out of 21 witnesses had been examined in that period – Held: The right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, coupled with the absence of any strong indication that the petitioner would tamper with witnesses, justified the grant of bail. The protracted incarceration without meaningful trial progress was deemed unjustifiable – Bail granted, subject to strict conditions to ensure the petitioner’s attendance at trial and to prevent witness tampering [Paras 6-11].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution of India – The right to speedy trial, embedded in Article 21, requires that an accused should not be subjected to indefinite pre-trial detention. Relying on judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the court reiterated that prolonged delay without justifiable reasons infringes upon personal liberty. In this case, the petitioner’s long detention of over 4 years warranted his release on bail in the absence of trial progress [Paras 7-9].

Decision:
The bail petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. Stringent conditions, including reporting to the police and restrictions on influencing witnesses, are imposed to ensure the petitioner’s compliance during the trial. The State is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail if any of these conditions are violated or if the petitioner engages in further criminal activity [Paras 12-13].
 

Non-Lodging of FIR – Remedy Available under Section 156(3) CrPC – Writ of Mandamus Denied

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the police to lodge an FIR regarding a complaint dated 25.09.2024, as no action had been taken by the authorities. The court referred to the judgment in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P., which emphasizes the duty of the police to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed. However, the court held that since the petitioner had an alternate remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 200 CrPC, a writ of mandamus could not be granted unless the exceptions outlined in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks applied. The court directed the petitioner to pursue remedies available under CrPC – Petition dismissed.

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Intentional Killing – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for killing the deceased with an axe – Prosecution’s case was based on the eyewitness testimonies of P.W.1 (wife of the deceased) and P.W.2 (son of the deceased) – Held: The appellant, after an initial altercation, went to his house, returned with an axe, and inflicted a blow on the deceased’s head – Evidence established the intentional nature of the act, and the conviction was upheld [Paras 15, 18, 20].

Delay in Filing FIR – Justified – There was a five-day delay in lodging the FIR – However, the delay was explained by the immediate efforts to save the life of the injured, as the deceased was referred to multiple hospitals before his death – The court found the explanation satisfactory, and the delay did not prejudice the prosecution's case [Paras 16, 17].

Non-Recovery of Weapon – Not Fatal – The murder weapon, an axe, was not recovered – However, consistent eyewitness accounts and medical evidence confirmed the nature of the injury (sharp cutting blow to the head), making the non-recovery of the weapon immaterial to the conviction [Paras 19, 20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 324 IPC upheld – The appellant to serve life imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court [Paras 20, 21].

Indian Succession Act – Probate and Letters of Administration – Will Dispute – Appellants challenged the grant of probate for the Will dated 30th July 1956, executed by deceased Ibrahim in favor of his grandson (Respondent) – The Trial Court granted probate despite the non-production of the original Will – Appellants argued that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, excluding other heirs, and the original Will was not produced – The High Court found the Trial Court erred in granting probate because the Will did not appoint an executor as required under Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act – Held: Respondent entitled to Letters of Administration with Will annexed, not probate [Paras 52-55].

Secondary Evidence – Admissibility of Certified Copy of Will – Appellants contended that secondary evidence should not have been allowed, as there was no proof the original Will was lost – The High Court held that secondary evidence is admissible under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act if the original document is lost or untraceable – Respondent proved that the original Will was not found despite search – Certified copy from the Sub-Registrar’s office was accepted as secondary evidence [Paras 43-45].

Execution of Will – Proof and Attestation – The Respondent called the son of the scribe and the daughter of one attesting witness to prove the Will’s execution – As one attesting witness was deceased and the other could not be traced, the High Court applied Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, allowing proof of the handwriting of one attesting witness when both witnesses are unavailable – The Court held the execution of the Will was sufficiently proven [Paras 46-48].

Suspicious Circumstances – Exclusion of Other Heirs – Appellants alleged that the exclusion of other legal heirs, including the testator's wife and grandchildren, was suspicious – The High Court noted that only some properties were bequeathed to the Respondent, while other properties remained for other heirs – The delay in bringing the Will to light was explained by the Respondent, who discovered the Will only after his father’s death in 2005 – No suspicious circumstances were found [Paras 49-51].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The Trial Court’s order granting probate was set aside – Letters of Administration with Will annexed granted to Respondent – Status quo to continue for six weeks [Paras 52-55].

Liability of Directors – Section 179 of the Income Tax Act – Natural Justice – Order Set Aside - The petitioner, a director of a private company, challenged the order passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, which held him personally liable for the company's tax dues. The Court held that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to prove that non-recovery of the tax was not due to any gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty on his part, which violated the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was quashed [Paras 9-12].

Principles of Natural Justice – Necessity of Hearing Directors Before Imposing Liability - The Court emphasized that Section 179 imposes a reverse burden on directors, but this burden can only be discharged if the director is given a fair opportunity to present evidence. The absence of a show cause notice and failure to follow principles of natural justice rendered the order unlawful [Paras 11-13].

Remand to Revenue Authorities – Fresh Consideration with Notice to the Petitioner - The Court set aside the impugned order, granting liberty to the Revenue to issue a fresh notice and follow due process in accordance with law before passing any final order [Paras 15-16].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Order Quashed - The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order and directing the Income Tax Department to reconsider the case after issuing proper notice to the petitioner [Para 16].
 

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Departmental Inquiry – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, a Bulldozer Operator, was compulsorily retired following a departmental inquiry for misbehaving with committee members during an interview process, being intoxicated during work hours, and other charges – On appeal, the dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement – The Court upheld the order, noting that the inquiry was conducted per the rules and natural justice principles, and all dues had been released to the petitioner [Paras 7-12].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Court Not an Appellate Authority – The Court reiterated that in disciplinary matters, the scope of judicial review is confined to ensuring compliance with procedural rules and natural justice – The Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with factual findings unless they are perverse or based on no evidence [Paras 9-13].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as the order of compulsory retirement was found to be valid, and all admissible dues had been released.

Excessive Demand for Final Payment – Validity of Sale Deed Terms – Declaration Rejected - The appellant sought a declaration that VUDA's demand for Rs.533,275.37 was excessive and arbitrary – Held: The sale deed explicitly provided that the price mentioned was tentative, and the appellant agreed to pay any excess amount upon final determination of compensation – The appellant cannot contest these terms after signing the agreement – Decision: Declaration denied.

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Suit for Declaration and Injunction – Maintainable - The appellant contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction – Held: Civil courts have jurisdiction over civil matters unless expressly excluded, and the relief sought is within the civil court's authority – Decision: Civil court has jurisdiction, suit is maintainable.

Permanent Injunction – Consequential Relief Denied - The appellant sought a permanent injunction to prevent VUDA from collecting the alleged excess amount – Held: Since the primary relief of declaration was denied, the consequential relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted – Decision: Injunction denied .

Final Price of Plots – Bound by Terms of Sale Deed - The appellant argued that the final price was arbitrary – Held: The sale deed clearly states that the price was tentative and subject to adjustment based on land acquisition proceedings – The appellant agreed to these terms – Decision: Appellant bound to pay the final price.

Bail Application – NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity of Narcotics – Section 37 NDPS Act – Bail Rejected - Section 50 Compliance – Non-compliance Alleged – The petitioner, a 71-year-old citizen of Belize, sought bail under Section 439 of CrPC, arguing non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act – Alleged that he was not informed of his right to be searched before the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Petitioner further raised discrepancies in the weight of the recovered contraband (9.950 Kg initially, 9.959 Kg later) and delay in sampling – High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that minor discrepancies in weight were immaterial and non-compliance with procedural guidelines under Section 52-A does not invalidate the trial [Paras 1, 5, 11, 13].

Contraband Recovery – Commercial Quantity – Heroin weighing 9.950 Kg recovered from the petitioner’s bag at the IGI Airport – The petitioner’s claim of false implication due to the presence of a pre-generated case number was rejected by the Court – The Court found no manipulation in the recovery process, holding the contraband seizure to be lawful and sufficient evidence under NDPS Act [Paras 6, 12, 14].

Application of Section 50 NDPS Act – Personal vs Baggage Search – The petitioner argued that Section 50 compliance was necessary, as the contraband was recovered from his baggage – The Court held that Section 50 applies to the search of a person, not baggage, following precedents set by Pawan Kumar vs. State of HP and other cases – No violation of Section 50 was found, as the search was conducted on the petitioner’s baggage in a public place [Paras 13, 18, 19, 23].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity and Bail Conditions – The High Court ruled that the commercial quantity of heroin attracts the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes strict conditions for granting bail – The petitioner could not demonstrate that he was not guilty or that he was unlikely to commit the offence if released – The Court emphasized that heroin, a highly addictive opioid, presents a severe threat to public health, further justifying denial of bail [Paras 25, 29, 32].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Court held that no grounds were made for granting bail, considering the commercial quantity of heroin and the petitioner's potential flight risk as a foreign national – The trial court was directed to expedite the trial [Paras 33, 34].