Civil Procedure – Interim Injunction – Use of Property – Petitioners-defendants challenged the orders restraining them from using a building in their possession until they paid an agreed sum to the respondents-plaintiffs. Held, restraining the use of the building through an interim order amounts to granting the main relief sought in the suit. The main relief cannot be extended as an interim relief. The trial court is free to grant compensation for unauthorized use at the end of the trial if it finds the defendants used the building without authorization. The impugned orders were modified, allowing the petitioners-defendants to use the portion of the building in their possession, subject to the final trial court order. [Para 8]

Principle of Main Relief in Interim Orders – The courts below erred by restraining the defendants from using the building through an interim application, effectively granting the main relief sought in the suit. Held, it is a settled legal principle that the main relief cannot be granted as interim relief. The courts can compensate for unauthorized use if proven at trial. [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Revision petition allowed. The impugned orders were modified to permit the petitioners-defendants to use the portion of the building in their possession, subject to the final trial court decision on authorization and potential compensation. [Para 10]

Constitutional Law – Right to Privacy – Whether the right to privacy is absolute - Apex Court has held that the right to privacy, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is not an absolute right and is subject to reasonable restrictions when legitimate public interest is involved - K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, followed.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) – Adultery – Production of records – Whether a wife has a right to seek call records and details of the room where her husband was staying during a specific period - Held, the right to privacy is not an absolute right and in case of a conflict between fundamental rights of two parties, the right which would advance the public morality or public interest, would alone be enforced through the process of court - Hospital Z v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158, followed - In this case, the respondent has raised a specific plea of adultery against the petitioner and has sought only specific information regarding the details of the room where her husband was staying during a specific period as also his call records alone - Therefore, the right of the respondent to seek production of records prevails over the right to privacy of the petitioner - Held further, the decision in Surjit Singh v. Santosh Kumari, AIR 2005 P&H 34, Vishwas Shetty v. State of Karnataka, (2018) 5 SCC 1 and Sangeeta v. Kishore, 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1165, distinguished - Petition dismissed - Para 39, 41-43.

Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 14 – Adultery – Production of records – Whether a wife has a right to seek call records and details of the room where her husband was staying during a specific period - Held, Section 14 of the Family Courts Act empowers the Family Court to lay down its own procedure - In this case, the learned Family Court by way of the impugned orders has sought records which pertain only to the respondent’s husband and not to his friend or her daughter - Therefore, there is no question of their right of privacy being violated in any manner - Para 41.

Adultery – Production of records – Whether a wife has a right to seek call records and details of the room where her husband was staying during a specific period - Held, the stage to determine the sufficiency of evidence is yet to arrive - Sangeeta v. Kishore, 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1165, distinguished - Para 43.

Constitutional Law – Right to Privacy – Freedom to have a consensual sexual relationship outside marriage – Whether the freedom to have a consensual sexual relationship outside marriage by a married person warrants protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Held, the freedom to have a consensual sexual relationship outside marriage by a married person does not warrant protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1, followed - Para 38.

Bail application - Rejection - Charges under Sections 376AB of IPC and Section 5m/6 of POCSO Act - Allegation of rape on a 7-year-old victim - Applicant falsely implicated - Medical examination report does not support prosecution's allegations - Intact hymen and no injuries found on victim's body - Court cites medical jurisprudence to establish that complete penetration, ejaculation, or hymen rupture not necessary for rape - Previous judgments emphasize reliability of victim's testimony and discourage requirement of corroboration in sexual assault cases - Seriousness of sexual crimes against women and children - Need for stern and severe punishment - Chargesheet carries minimum sentence of 20 years - Presumption under POCSO Act applicable - Bail application rejected. (Para 16-17)

1. Criminal Law - Revision - Concurrent finding of conviction - Petitioner convicted under Sections 304-A IPC - Appeal dismissed - Revision against the concurrent finding of conviction - Petitioner acquitted based on the defense's version being highly probable - Benefit of doubt given to the accused. [Para 13]

2. Criminal Law - Evidence - Eyewitness testimony - Analysis of statements - Site plan - Inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' version - Highly improbable accident scenario presented by prosecution witnesses - Defense version supported by independent witnesses - Defense's version considered highly probable - Testimony of defense witnesses found reliable - Acquittal of accused warranted. [Para 9, 10, 12]

3. Criminal Law - Duty of Court - Analyzing prosecution and defense witnesses - Equality in assessing testimonies - Benefit of doubt - Court duty-bound to analyze statements of both sides on equal parameters to judge their truthfulness - Benefit of doubt to be given to accused when defense's version is highly probable and supported by independent witnesses. [Para 11]

Administrative Law – Appointment of Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) – Writ petition seeking quashing of the order withdrawing DDO powers from the petitioner and conferring them on respondent No.4. The petitioner contended that the DDO powers should not be assigned to an officer from outside the office. Held, the DDO powers are administrative and meant for the smooth running of the office, involving no promotion or higher pay scale. Rule 1.24 of the Punjab Financial Rules allows any Gazetted Officer to be appointed as DDO. The petitioner failed to show any statutory violation or adverse effect. Petition dismissed. [Paras 6-7]

Administrative Procedures – Jurisdiction of DDO – The assignment of DDO powers is for administrative efficiency, ensuring timely disbursal of payments and salaries. Held, the DDO can be any Gazetted Officer, including from outside the office, as per Rule 1.24 read with Rule 1.15. The petitioner's challenge is unfounded as no statutory right is violated, nor is there any financial prejudice. [Para 6]

Decision:

Petition dismissed. The court found no merit in the petition, which was deemed to be driven by ego rather than legal grounds. The assignment of DDO powers to respondent No.4 was upheld as per administrative rules. [Paras 7-8]

*** Criminal Procedure - Re-trial - Additional evidence - Exceptional circumstances required for ordering re-trial - Re-trial to be ordered only in cases where the trial Court lacked jurisdiction, or serious illegalities or irregularities vitiated the trial, or material evidence was prevented from being tendered - Proper course for Appellate Court to resort to Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. when additional evidence is required - Reference to Ukhe Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra, Satyajit Banerjee v. State of West Bengal, Pashori Lal v. Punjab State, M/s Chennakesha Bandage v. State of A.P., and Bhupendera Singh Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh - Section 386 and Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. examined. (Para 9)

Section 386 and Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Scope and application - Re-trial and taking of additional evidence - Re-trial ordered only in exceptional circumstances where trial Court lacked jurisdiction, serious illegalities or irregularities vitiated the trial, or material evidence was prevented from being tendered - Proper course for Appellate Court to resort to Section 391 Cr.P.C. when additional evidence is required - Section 386 and Section 391 Cr.P.C. explained and analyzed in light of case precedents. (Para 9, 13)

Principles governing re-trial - Exceptional circumstances required - Re-trial ordered only when trial Court had no jurisdiction, serious illegalities or irregularities vitiated the trial, or material evidence was prevented from being tendered - Additional evidence to be taken through proper procedure under Section 391 Cr.P.C. - Reference to case precedents emphasizing the exceptional nature of re-trials and the limited scope for their application. (Para 9, 11)

Procedure - Appellate Court's powers - Appropriate recourse when additional evidence is required - Appellate Court to resort to Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. to take additional evidence or remand to Trial Court - Re-trial ordered only in exceptional circumstances as specified under Section 386 Cr.P.C. - Proper procedure under Section 391 Cr.P.C. outlined for taking additional evidence. (Para 9, 11)

Time-bound disposal of appeals - Direction for timely disposal of appeal - Appellate Court directed to decide the matter within a specified timeframe, considering the age of the case and the interests of justice. (Para 12)

Service Law – Assured Career Progression – Technical and Non-Technical Pay Scales – Writ petition seeking quashing of the order that rejected the petitioner’s pay fixation in the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 + GP 3200 as the first ACP from 01.02.2006 and reduced his pay. The petitioner was granted a technical pay scale earlier, which should be treated as the functional pay scale as per the Haryana (Abolition of Distinction of Pay Scale between Technical and Non-Technical Posts) Act, 2014, and the clarificatory instructions dated 27.08.2014. Held, the technical pay scale granted to an employee on the ordinance date must be treated as the functional pay scale, and ACP benefits must be based on it. The impugned order did not consider these instructions. Petition allowed. [Paras 1-9]

Interpretation of Service Rules – Clarificatory Instructions – The petitioner’s pay should be fixed based on the technical pay scale granted prior to the ordinance. Held, the instructions dated 27.08.2014 were not considered in the impugned order. The petitioner’s pay reduction was unjustified. [Paras 7-8]

Decision: Impugned order set aside. Respondent No. 3 is directed to pass a fresh order within four months, considering the clarificatory instructions dated 27.08.2014. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. [Paras 9-10]

BAIL – Grant of bail – Accused charged under sections 363/376 IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Prosecutrix, allegedly a minor at the time of the incident, in a relationship with the accused – Prosecutrix consistent in her statement that she went with accused out of her free will – Accused and prosecutrix wanted to marry each other and live together – Prosecutrix now claiming to be 18 years of age – No incriminating evidence against the accused on record – Accused in judicial custody since 07.06.2021 – Accused’s counsel seeking regular bail – Held - considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that in such cases of teenage love, the genuine innocent teenage boys and girls, being unaware of age of consent in law being 18 years, languish in jail or in protection home, and confinement in jail will cause distress and will impact the psychological health of the accused, the accused/applicant is admitted to bail, for a period of two months from the date of release, on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/Link Court/Successor Court/Duty Magistrate – Applicant shall provide his mobile number to the Investigating Officer which shall be kept active and in working conditions at all times – On period of expiry of two months, the applicant shall surrender before the Trial Court concerned.

Constitutional Law - Article 21 - Right to life - Obligation of State to provide convenient access, including ambulance roads, for medical emergencies - Duty of Gram Panchayat to provide road access for emergency medical aid to villagers - Construction of road for an unauthorized occupant - Mandamus sought to quash the direction for road construction - Gram Panchayat resisting the construction - Road construction not limited to personal benefit but encompassing right to life of villagers.

Civil Writ Petition - Construction of road for unauthorized occupant - Mandamus sought to quash the direction - Gram Panchayat's resistance - Obligation of Gram Panchayat to provide road access for emergency medical aid - Frivolous petition generated by malafides - Costs imposed on Sarpanch.

Civil Procedure - Costs - Frivolous petition - Malafides - Costs imposed on Sarpanch for filing a frivolous petition - Amount to be deposited with Treasurer of Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association.