CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Bail – Regular Bail – Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner in custody for almost 4 years and 1 month in connection with FIR No.103 dated 07.05.2019 – Offenses registered under Sections 307, 353, 186, 224, 225, 34, 379-B, and 120-B IPC (Section 411 IPC added subsequently) and Section 25/27 of Arms Act at Police Station City Kapurthala, Punjab – Petitioner’s name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of a co-accused – Allegations of firing shots against co-accused already in custody – Trial not progressing, charges not framed, and a total of 35 witnesses – Two co-accused granted regular bail by the High Court in previous orders – Petitioner involved in other cases but currently out on bail for all of them – Reliance placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382 – Observations that mere criminal antecedents and gravity of the alleged crime should not be the sole basis for denial of bail – Petitioner granted regular bail – Conditions imposed to ensure compliance. (Para No.1-10)

Civil Procedure – Non-Impleadment of Legal Representatives –Civil Revision against the order of the trial court dismissing the suit against a deceased defendant for non-impleadment of his legal representatives – CPC Order XXII, Rule 4 as amended for Punjab and Haryana allows the suit to proceed – Trial court directed to continue proceedings as if the deceased defendant were alive – Held that the amendment aims to prevent the halting of proceedings due to the death of a party and to ensure the joint interest of all parties is protected. [Paras 1-18]

Objective of Amendment – Continuation of Proceedings –Held – The amendment to Order XXII Rule 4 CPC is intended to avoid delays and ensure the continuation of suits despite the death of a defendant – Legal representatives have the option to apply for impleadment at any stage – The principle ensures that the interests of deceased defendants are represented. [Para 17-18]

Decision – Setting Aside of Dismissal Order –The court set aside the trial court’s order dismissing the suit against the deceased defendant – The trial court is instructed to proceed with the suit as if the deceased defendant were alive – The amendment prevents abatement of suits due to non-impleadment of legal representatives. [Para 18]

CRIMINAL APPEAL – Bail application – Accused charged with offenses under Sections 326 and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code – Chart annexed to the charge-sheet containing details of mobile numbers and subscribers – Prosecution’s claim regarding the applicant’s connection to the seized bag – Lack of supporting material in charge-sheet – Court finding materials quoted insufficient for further detention – Applicant granted bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond – Conditions imposed for attendance and non-interference with prosecution witnesses – Observations to not influence trial court – Bail application disposed of. (Para 1-10)

Selection of Athletes for International Sporting Events - Scope of Judicial Review – Discretion of National Sports Federation – Exemption from Selection Trials – Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) exempted elite wrestlers (Respondents No.3 & No.4) from selection trials for the upcoming Asian Games to prevent injuries based on their performance in world wrestling events – Court held that the decision of selecting athletes for international events is best left to the experts of the National Sports Federation – Judicial review limited to examining arbitrariness, capriciousness, or perversity in decision-making process – Court cannot sit in appeal over the decisions of Expert Committees – Writ court will not interfere in the exercise of discretion of the National Sports Federation unless the discretion is shown to be arbitrary or contrary to settled principles or practices. (Para 21)

Discretionary Remedy under Article 226 - Court’s Jurisdiction – Issuance of a writ is a discretionary remedy – Court can refuse to exercise jurisdiction even if the petitioner may have a claim in law – Court’s power of judicial review limited to the deficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision itself. (Para 20)

Importance of Expertise in Sports Selection - Sports Selection Criteria – Importance of considering various factors in selecting sportspersons for international events – Court’s lack of expertise to review selection decisions – Court cannot substitute its own view with that of Expert Committees unless decisions are arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. (Para 16)

Limited Scope of Judicial Review - Judicial Review – Mere error or mistake insufficient to invoke powers under Article 226 – Court’s review restricted to ascertaining arbitrariness, procedural impropriety, or defiance of logic or moral standards in the decision-making process – Court cannot interfere with discretionary powers of administrative authorities unless exercise of discretion is shown to be perverse or illegal. (Para 20)

Disputed Documents in Judicial Proceedings - Veracity of Documents – Court declined to consider certain disputed documents due to lack of ascertainable veracity – Disputed documents can only be proved in a suit by leading oral/documentary evidence. (Para 22)

Impact of Litigation on Sports Preparation and Performance - Disruption due to Litigation – Court acknowledged the potential disruption and impact of litigations on the preparation and performance of players in international sports events – Encouraged circumspection in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 to prevent hindrance to athletes’ mental and emotional preparedness. (Para 24)

Abuse of Process of Law – Misuse of legal proceedings to achieve something for which no cause exists – Unjust continuation or initiation of criminal prosecution – Abuse of process amounts to unfairness and injustice to the complainant or prosecution – Examination of facts and circumstances in each case. (Para 110-112)

Fair Trial – Adjudicative functions of criminal courts must be cautiously exercised – Unfairness to accused or proposed accused can affect their reputation and life – Institution of criminal case must be examined in the context of validity of the order challenged before the court. (Para 112)

Sufficiency or Insufficiency of Incriminating Material – Distinction between inadequacy and absence of material – Improper use of criminal legal process – Duty of the Magistrate to consider sufficiency or insufficiency of material before ordering registration of an FIR. (Para 113-116)

Balancing Interests – Magistrates must exercise discretion under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. judiciously – Personal liberty and reputation of the accused or proposed accused must be considered – Orders regarding registration of FIRs should be passed with caution and after application of judicial mind. (Para 118-120)

Conclusion of the Court – Detailed examination of the complaint, application, police inquiry, and impugned order – No allegation against the petitioner in the complaint – Allegations do not constitute any offence against the petitioner – No incriminating material against the petitioner – Initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law – Lack of application of judicial mind by the Magistrate – Courts should pass reasoned orders based on law and material. (Para 121-133)

Maintaining Communal Harmony – No place for hatred or communal disharmony in a civilized society – Protection of citizens from malicious prosecution – Courts should be cautious and circumspect while ordering registration of FIRs in sensitive cases – Non-discrimination and tolerance of cultural and religious values are key to nation-building. (Para 124-126)

Exercise of Magisterial Powers – Magisterial power must be used with utmost caution, vigilance, and circumspection – Careful consideration of complaint and Action Taken Report by the police – Invoking powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order directing registration of FIR when no material or allegations exist against the accused – Abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice if continuation of criminal proceedings is allowed. (Para 127-132)

Disposal of the Petition – Impugned order set aside – Judgment to be circulated to the concerned authorities – Original record to be sent back to the Trial Court – The judgment to be uploaded on the website. (Para 133-136)

Criminal Law – Bail – Petitioner charged under NDPS Act for possession of intoxicant tablets – Seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC – Petitioner in custody for over 2 years and 7 months – No criminal antecedents – Co-accused already granted bail – Willing to comply with stringent conditions – State opposes bail due to the commercial quantity of contraband involved – Court applies the principles of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl) 6690-2022] – Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92] – Madhu Tanwar and Anr. V. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21] – Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28] – Court imposes bail conditions for securing bail – Bail granted subject to specific terms and conditions to ensure the safety of society.

Criminal Law – Bail – Bail conditions must have a nexus to the purpose they seek to serve and be proportional to the purpose of imposing them – Courts can impose restrictive conditions subject to evidence produced – Bail conditions should minimize reliance on sureties and consider alternative options – Bail can be canceled if the accused commits an offense with a sentence of more than seven years or violates bail conditions – Petitioner granted bail on fulfilling conditions under Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl) 6690-2022] – Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92] – Madhu Tanwar and Anr. V. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21] – Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735  – Court emphasizes balancing the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial when imposing bail conditions.

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) – Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) – Violation of – Seizure of cash from petitioner’s cloth store – Show Cause Notices issued alleging contravention of FERA provisions – First Show Cause Notice set aside in appeal – Second Show Cause Notice issued after the first one was set aside – No substantial evidence to prove petitioner guilty – Appellate Tribunal’s judgment and order dated 24^th March 2004 set aside by High Court.

Fair opportunity to defend – Impugned order passed in petitioner’s absence – Petitioner unable to attend hearing due to financial constraints – Unjust approach by Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) in issuing a second Show Cause Notice after the first one was set aside.

Refund of seized amount – High Court directs respondent to refund Rs.1,48,000/- seized on 12^th May 1988 – Simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of seizure to be paid to the petitioner.

(Para No. 2, 5, 21, 25, 28, 32)

Mutation of Names – Property Law – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – Declaration of Title – Permissibility of Mutation based on Will – Mutation entries in revenue records do not confer ownership – Mutation entries relevant only for land revenue purposes – Competent civil court required for declaration of title.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Petition filed against order of Additional Commissioner, Revenue Division, Rewa – Appeal for mutation of names based on a Will – Partial allowance of application by Tehsildar – Appeal allowed by SDO Huzur, District Bhopal – Petitioners filed appeal before Commissioner for modification – Respondents filed application for impleadment in pending appeal – Application allowed by Additional Commissioner.

Supreme Court Decisions – Mutation entries not conferring or extinguishing title – Entries relevant only for the purpose of land revenue collection – Title to property can only be decided by competent civil court – Mutation on the basis of Will held per se illegal.

Jurisdictional Error – Petition filed against interim order – No jurisdictional error found – Petition dismissed.

Property Rights – Will-based mutation impermissible – Petitioners advised to seek declaration of title through competent civil court.

Importance of Civil Court – Mutation entries not creating or extinguishing title – Title to property to be determined by competent civil court.

Impermissibility of Mutation on the Basis of Will – Mutation entries not conferring ownership rights – Legal position established by series of Supreme Court decisions. Proper Approach to Establish Title – Petitioners to seek a declaration of title through a competent civil court – Mutation not a valid means to establish ownership based on a Will.

Mutation Entries – Fiscal Purpose Only – Mutation entries relevant for land revenue collection – No ownership conferred based on such entries. Dismissal of Petition – Petition seeking mutation on the basis of Will dismissed – Mutation based on Will held to be per se illegal.

Question of Law – The Court re-framed the issue as to whether the ITAT was justified in finding the assessment under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, bad, when no assessment proceedings were pending at the time of initiation under Section 153A. [Para 2]

Factual Background – The original assessment of the respondent for the year 2002-03 was completed under Section 143(3) and subsequently set aside by the 1st Appellate Authority under Section 263. A search under Section 132 led to initiation of Section 153A proceedings. [Para 3-4]

Legal Framework – The Tribunal relied on the High Court of Delhi's ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla, summarized the legal position on assessment and re-assessment under Section 153A, stressing the significance of 'pending assessments' and 'completed assessments'. [Para 6]

Assessing Officer's Jurisdiction – The Assessing Officer is empowered to proceed with assessments under Section 153A only when some incriminating material is disclosed during the search or when an assessment is pending. [Para 7]

Decision – Affirming the Tribunal's findings, the Court held that the assessment for the year 2002-03 had been completed prior to the search and Section 153A proceedings. The Court answered the re-framed question in favor of the assessee and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. [Para 8]