Premature Release – Denial of Premature Release – Petitioner’s plea for premature release rejected – Convicted under Sections 302, 323, 34 of IPC and Arms Act – Serving life imprisonment since 2001 – Contention based on Punjab Government policy dated 08.07.1991 regarding sentence remissions. [Paras 1-3]

Policy Interpretation – Punjab Government’s 1991 policy for life convicts – Minimum actual imprisonment of 10 years and total of 14 years including remission for certain categories – Petitioner's claim of fulfilling these criteria for premature release. [Paras 7-9]

Actual Sentence Calculation – Discrepancy between petitioner’s claim and state’s submission on actual sentence served – State’s formula excludes parole period from actual sentence – Reference to Supreme Court’s decision in Avtar Singh Vs. State of Haryana regarding non-inclusion of parole in actual sentence calculation. [Paras 10-12, 14-15]

Legal Precedent – Reliance on Supreme Court’s judgment in Avtar Singh case – Upholding legislative provision excluding parole period from actual sentence calculation – Impact on the petitioner’s claim for premature release. [Paras 13-16]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner not meeting the actual sentence requirement as per 1991 policy after excluding parole period – Petitioner ineligible for premature release. [Para 18]

Specific Relief Act – Application under Section 28 to rescind the agreement to sell – Dismissal of application by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Suit for specific performance filed by respondent – Ex-parte decree in favor of respondent – Petitioner’s contention that respondent failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period of 3 months – Allegation of illegal permission granted by the Court to deposit the balance sale consideration – Petitioner’s application under Section 28 filed after more than 2 years of the passing of the ex-parte decree – Delay in depositing balance sale consideration condoned by the trial Court – Petitioner’s failure to establish sufficient grounds for rescission of the agreement to sell – Revision petition dismissed for lack of merit. [Para 1-9]

Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petition for quashing complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 – Complaint and subsequent summoning order challenged – Petitioner not a signatory to the disputed cheque, issued from a joint account with her husband. [Para 1, 2, 4]

Principal of Liability – Cheque Dishonour – Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 – Emphasis on prosecution of the drawer of the cheque only – Reference to the Supreme Court rulings in Aparna A Shah Vs. M/s Sheth Developers P. Ltd. and Alka Khandu Avhad Vs. Amar Syamprasad Mishra for guidance on the liability of the signatory. [Para 3, 7, 9, 10]

Judicial Interpretation – Drawer’s Liability – Analysis of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Supreme Court judgments – Reaffirmation that only the drawer of the cheque can be prosecuted under Section 138 – Joint account holders not automatically culpable unless they are signatories to the cheque. [Para 8, 11, 27, 28]

Decision – Quashing of Proceedings Against Petitioner – Petition accepted – Proceedings against the petitioner quashed based on her non-signatory status to the cheque – Proceedings may continue against her husband, the signatory of the cheque. [Para 11, 12]

Civil Suit – Rejection of plaint – Jurisdiction of the trial court to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Interpretation of the nature of relief sought by the petitioners – Distinction between seeking cancellation and seeking declaration of invalidity – Applicability of ad valorem court fees – Incorrect interpretation of the petitioner’s claim – Impugned order set aside. [Para 1-13]

Disposition of Revision Petition – Revision petition allowed, and the impugned order is set aside – Directions for the trial court to proceed with the suit expeditiously – No expression of opinion on the merits of the case. [Para 14-15]

Criminal Application – Compounding of Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Application for compounding rejected by Magistrate – Application made by accused directors of a company for dishonour of a cheque amounting to Rs. 15 lakhs – Appeal against the non-compounding of the offence. [Para 2, 3, 4, 6]

Insolvency Proceedings – Impact on Criminal Proceedings – Accused company admitted to insolvency and Interim Resolution Professional appointed – Claim of non-applicant filed before IRP – Relevance of insolvency proceedings to criminal liability under Section 138 of the NI Act. [Para 5, 30, 31]

Compounding of Offences – Guidelines and Judicial Interpretation – Consideration of Supreme Court guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal and Meters & Instruments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kanchan Mehta – Ability of courts to compound offences under Section 138 of the NI Act in absence of complainant’s consent, subject to adequate compensation to complainant. [Para 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29]

Judicial Discretion in Compounding – Piecemeal Compromise and Compounding Permitted – Court’s power under Section 482 of CrPC to compound offences even without complainant’s consent in appropriate cases, ensuring adequate compensation to complainant. [Para 32, 35, 36]

Decision – Magistrate's order rejecting compounding application set aside – Offence against applicants compounded subject to deposit of cheque amount with interest and litigation costs – Applicants discharged upon deposit of amount – No cost payable to District Legal Services Authority. [Para 37]

Temporary Stay on Order – Post-judgment request for stay of order’s operation – Granted for six weeks to allow respondent no.2 to appeal to the Supreme Court. [Post-judgment note]

Writ Petition – Joining of Landlord as a Party in Tenant's Suit Against Corporation for Demolition Action – Examination of the necessity and propriety of landlord's inclusion in tenant's suit for protection against demolition. [Para 1, 28]

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Parties under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC – Power of court to join a party as necessary for effective adjudication of the suit – Analysis of the judicial discretion involved in the inclusion of landlords in tenant's litigation against municipal demolition. [Para 6, 7, 28]

Supreme Court Precedents – Interpretation of Aliji Momonji & Co. v. Lalji Mavji and Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay – Assessment of the Supreme Court's stance on the participation of landlords in suits initiated by tenants or licensees against municipal corporations. [Para 16, 17, 23]

Judicial Discretion – Consistent Exercise in Adding Landlord as Proper Party in Tenant's Suits – Recognition of landlord's direct interest in property subject to demolition notice and the rationale for their inclusion as proper parties in relevant lawsuits. [Para 28, 30]

Legal Principle – Landlord as a Proper Party in Tenant’s Suit Against Demolition – Affirmation that landlords can be joined as proper parties in tenant-initiated suits against municipal demolition actions, based on their direct interest in the property and potential impact on their rights. [Para 32]

Decision – Resolution of Divergent Views Amongst Single Judges of High Court – Clarification of legal position regarding the inclusion of landlords in tenant's suits against municipal corporations, aligning with Supreme Court precedents. [Para 31, 33]

Industrial Disputes Act – Strike by workers – Entitlement to wages during the strike period – Tribunal’s award granting 50% wages during an illegal strike challenged – Principles of law regarding payment of wages during work stoppages due to strikes discussed. [Para 8]

Industrial Tribunal’s Award – Failure to consider relevant factors – Disregard of financial repercussions on management – Tribunal’s award set aside for not taking into account the impact of modernization and the need for higher production. [Para 9]

Certiorari – Writ of Certiorari issued – Industrial Tribunal’s award quashed – Writ Petition allowed. [Para 10-11]

Revision Against Deposit Order – Petitioner, convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act and directed to pay compensation, challenges the appellate court’s order requiring deposit of 20% of compensation. Raises the issue of financial hardship due to losses during the Covid period. [Para 1, 4]

Appellate Court’s Order – Appellate court suspended the sentence under Section 389 CrPC but imposed a condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount, following the Supreme Court’s direction in Surinder Singh Deshwal @ Col. S.S. Deswal and others Vs. Virender Gandhi and another. [Para 3]

Consideration of Exceptional Circumstances – Petitioner argues for exemption from depositing 20% of the compensation, citing financial difficulties and referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And others. [Para 4-5, 9-11]

Legal Interpretation of Deposit Requirement – High Court discusses the interpretation of Section 148 of the NI Act regarding the deposit of compensation, highlighting that it’s not an absolute rule without exceptions. The appellate court must consider if a case falls under ‘exceptional circumstances’ for exempting the deposit. [Para 7, 9]

Remand for Reconsideration – The High Court sets aside the appellate court’s order and remands the case for reconsideration of the petitioner’s plea about ‘exceptional circumstances’ to exempt the 20% compensation deposit. Directions issued for parties to appear before the appellate court. [Para 12]

Criminal Revision - Deposit of compensation amount - Petitioner convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sentence suspended with the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation amount - Exceptional circumstances claimed by petitioner - Order challenged in revision. [Para 1-5]

Interpretation of Section 148 of the NI Act - The word "may" construed as "shall" for the purpose of directing the accused to deposit a minimum of 20% of the compensation/fine amount pending appeal - Purpose of the amendment in Section 148 of the NI Act emphasized. [Para 7]

Exemption from deposit - Appellate Court's discretion to exempt the accused from depositing 20% of the compensation amount in exceptional cases - Requirement to record reasons for such exemption - Similar plea not raised before the Appellate Court - Reliance on the case of Jamboo Bhandari for the principle that when an accused applies for suspension of sentence without any condition, the Court must consider whether the case falls into an exception. [Para 11-12]

Petition under Section 482 CrPC – Seeking action based on representation dated 10.03.2022 (Annexure P3) and enquiry report dated 12.08.2022 (Annexure P4) against the accused for posting vulgar and threatening comments on petitioner's family photographs on Facebook – Allegation of police inaction due to political influence. [Para 1]

FIR No. 154 of 2021 – Background of the case involving attack on petitioner's house and subsequent vulgar Facebook comments by one of the accused – Police filed a cancellation report, not accepted by Area Magistrate – Inquiry report recommended action under Section 66 of the IT Act, later altered due to legal interpretations. [Para 2]

Maintainability of the Petition – Respondent No.4 challenged the petition's maintainability citing Supreme Court precedents – High Court agreed, emphasizing the alternative remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC for grievances regarding FIR registration and investigation. [Paras 3-4]

Legal Precedents and Alternative Remedy – Reference to Sakiri Vasu vs. State of UP and others, and Radha Krishna Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh – High Court’s discretion in writ jurisdiction and the principle of not entertaining petitions when effective alternative remedies exist. [Paras 5-7]

Disposal of Petition – High Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy under Section 156 or Section 200 CrPC, as the case did not involve breach of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of legislation. [Para 9]