Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Offences under Sections 283 and 427 of IPC - FIR registered against the petitioners for operating a car workshop in a residential area - Petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and all proceedings arising from it - Counsel for petitioners argued that the FIR was registered due to multiple litigations with the landlord and that the offences were not made out from the contents of the FIR - Counsel for the state argued that the sealed gate of the workshop was opened from one side, causing obstruction and injury to the public - High Court held that the allegations in the FIR did not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused - High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it - Petition allowed.  Para Number: 1-14

Defamation - Cause of action - Disclosure in plaint - Rejection of plaint - Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC - Defendant-petitioner filed application seeking rejection of plaint on the ground of lack of cause of action - Plaintiff-respondent alleged defamation and false complaints - Plaint did not disclose specific defamatory statements or provide details of alleged complaints - Court held that plaint failed to disclose cause of action for defamation - Mere allegation of defamatory statements without specific details does not constitute cause of action - Application allowed, plaint rejected.

Judicial Privilege - Quasi-judicial proceedings - Defamation claim - Statements made before quasi-judicial authority - Absolute privilege - Statements in affidavit filed before Registrar of Cooperative Society held to be absolutely privileged - No basis for defamatory action - Plaint rejected.

Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC - Rejection of plaint - Lack of cause of action - Plaint should contain facts constituting cause of action - Failure to disclose cause of action warrants rejection of plaint - Plaint must provide specific details of defamatory statements and alleged complaints - Allegations without particulars not sufficient for continuation of civil suit - Application under Order 7 Rule 11 allowed, plaint rejected.

Importance of Specificity - Defamation claim - Specific details of defamatory statements and alleged complaints necessary - Mere averment of defamatory and derogatory statements not sufficient - Plaint must disclose dates, authorities, and specific particulars - Failure to provide specific details leads to rejection of plaint.

Jurisdiction - Order 7 Rule 1(e) of CPC - Requirement of disclosing facts constituting cause of action - Lack of specific details in plaint - Failure to establish jurisdiction - Plaint rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d).

Motor Accident Claims - Compensation - Loss of dependence - Legal representatives entitled to claim compensation - Even if major married and earning sons are not fully dependent on the deceased, they are still covered as legal representatives - Compensation to be considered beyond conventional heads. [Para 9]

Dependency - Definition and criteria - Dependency includes financial dependency as well as other forms of dependency such as gratuitous service, physical, emotional, and psychological dependency - Children of deceased, though grown up and settled in their own lives, may still be dependent on the deceased in various ways. [Para 10]

Determination of loss of dependency - Earnings of the deceased and value of services towards household affairs to be considered - Modest estimate based on evidence to be taken into account - Addition for future prospects and deduction for personal living expenses - Appropriate multiplier to be applied based on the age of the deceased. [Para 12-15]

Compensation under conventional heads - Loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate - Each of the appellants-claimants entitled to compensation for loss of consortium - Enhancement of compensation for funeral expenses and loss of estate. [Para 16-18]

Injuries sustained by appellant-claimant - Standard of proof in a claim petition - Summary enquiry with a lower standard of proof than in criminal or civil cases - FIR, medical records, and receipts of expenses to establish injuries - Lump sum compensation awarded for injuries and trauma suffered. [Para 21-26]

Appeals allowed - Impugned Award modified - Enhanced compensation awarded to the appellants based on loss of dependence, conventional heads, and injuries sustained - Interest and other terms to be as ordered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. [Para 27]

Service Law - Annual Increment - Disabled Employee - Petition under Article 226 - Challenge to denial of annual increment due to non-clearance of type test - Petitioner 60% disabled and locomotor disabled - Government instructions grant exemption to handicapped employees from passing type test - Authority failed to consider disability and applicable instructions - Impugned order set aside - Direction to reconsider petitioner's claim in light of government instructions - Petition allowed. [Paras 1-11]

Disability and Exemption from Type Test - Legal Analysis - Government instructions provide exemption for handicapped employees from the condition of passing type test - Failure of authority to consider disability and applicable instructions - Imperative for authority to examine instructions before deciding on benefits for disabled employees - Non-consideration leads to setting aside of impugned order. [Paras 7-10]

Decision - Allowance of Writ Petition - High Court sets aside impugned order denying annual increment - Direction to respondent to pass fresh order after considering government instructions and hearing petitioner - Speaking order to be passed if exemption not granted - Exercise to be completed within four months. [Paras 10-11]

Criminal Law - Appeal against Conviction and Acquittal - Sections 324, 307 IPC - Delay in FIR registration, absence of independent witnesses, and motive are critical factors - Inordinate and unexplained delay of five days in registering the FIR - Prosecution's failure to explain delay undermines credibility - Absence of independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a populated area - Defense evidence, including injuries on accused, not adequately addressed by prosecution - Conviction under Section 324 IPC set aside and accused acquitted - Appeal against acquittal under Section 307 IPC dismissed. [Paras 1-25]

Delay in FIR Registration - Legal Implication - Analysis - Unexplained delay in lodging FIR can corrode the credibility of the prosecution's case - Prosecution failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the five-day delay - Delay deemed significant and impacts the overall credibility of the prosecution's story. [Paras 11-14]

Motive - Importance in Criminal Cases - Analysis - While motive is not always essential in cases with direct evidence, its significance increases when there is delay and concealment of true facts - Lack of motive in prosecution's case and concealment of facts further weaken the prosecution's stance. [Paras 15-16]

Independent Witnesses - Necessity in Corroboration - Analysis - Independent witnesses lend credibility to the prosecution's case - Failure to involve any independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a populated area - Sole reliance on interested witnesses (relatives of the complainant) insufficient - Accused entitled to benefit of doubt. [Paras 17-18]

Defense Evidence - Equitable Consideration - Analysis - Defense witnesses' testimony must be treated at par with prosecution witnesses if they withstand cross-examination - Injuries on accused not explained by prosecution - Defense version found more probable - Accused's prompt reporting of incident supports his defense. [Paras 19-21]

Decision - Setting Aside of Conviction - High Court sets aside the conviction under Section 324 IPC - Acquittal of accused ordered - Appeal against acquittal under Section 307 IPC dismissed - Trial Court's judgment based on misappreciation of evidence and unsustainable in law. [Paras 21-25]

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation for Death – FIR under Sections 302, 379, and 188 IPC – Claim petition dismissed as FIR pertained to murder, not a negligent accident – Death caused by accident by offending vehicle proved – Intention of the driver immaterial – Use of vehicle on road and resulting accident sufficient for compensation – Appeal allowed – Matter remanded to Tribunal for assessment of compensation. [Para 11]

Negligence Irrelevant for Compensation – Analysis – Accident caused by offending vehicle admitted by driver and owner – Sufficient evidence proving accident – Liability cannot be avoided by claiming no negligent driving – Intention behind accident irrelevant – Use of vehicle leading to death makes vehicle liable for compensation – Tribunal's finding of no compensation due to intentional murder unsustainable. [Para 11]

Judicial Precedents – Compensation for Road Accident – Previous rulings affirm that negligence is not the basis for compensation – Compensation is for loss due to use of vehicle on road – Criminal case aspects irrelevant for claim petitions under Motor Vehicles Act. [Para 11-12]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Tribunal's dismissal of claim petition set aside – Matter remanded for assessment of compensation – Parties to appear before Tribunal on specified date. [Para 13-15]

Arbitration Law – Scope of Judicial Review – Sections 37 of Arbitration Act and Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act – Appeal against arbitral award – Non-compliance with Section 18(2) of MSMED Act – Appellants participated in arbitration after dismissal of writ petition – Same issue cannot be raised de novo – Scope of judicial review minimal – Appeal dismissed. [Para 9-10]

Liquidated Damages – Inclusion in Written Arguments – Section 37 of Arbitration Act – Dispute regarding liquidated damages raised in written arguments – Arbitrator within rights to adjudicate disputes raised during proceedings – No illegality in award – Appeal dismissed. [Para 11]

Award of Interest – Arbitrator's Domain – Arbitrator empowered to award interest – No grounds for interference – Interest awarded on amount from date specified until payment – Appeal dismissed. [Para 12-14]

Judicial Precedents – Scope of Interference – Appeal under Section 37 akin to second appeal – Interference limited to findings contrary to contract terms or patently illegal – Minor errors not corrected – Reassessment of evidence not permissible. [Para 10, 14-17]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Findings of arbitrator upheld – No grounds for interference under Section 37 – Appeal dismissed. [Para 18-19]

Bail Conditions - Modification - Furnishing of Local Surety - Jurisdiction - Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution - The petitioner, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, seeks modification of the bail condition requiring a local surety with immovable property within the jurisdiction of the trial court in Chandigarh. The petitioner argues that his relatives have immovable property in SAS Nagar, Mohali, and can act as sureties. Relying on the case of "Moti Ram and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; (1978) 4 SCC 47," the petitioner contends that the condition violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality to all citizens. (Para 4)

Court's Observation - Purpose of Bail Conditions - Impediments in Release - Unity of Indians - The court acknowledges that the purpose of imposing bail conditions is to secure the presence of the accused during trial, rather than creating impractical hindrances in their release. Citing the observations in Moti Ram's case, the court emphasizes that requiring sureties to be local or from a specific district disrupts the unity of Indians and violates the principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 8)

Judicial Discretion - Modification of Bail Conditions - Relaxation of Local Surety Requirement - The court refers to the recent judgment titled "IN RE POLICY STRATEGY FOR GRANT OF BAIL" and holds that the condition of local surety need not be insisted upon by the courts. The court further emphasizes that if an accused is unable to fulfill the condition within a month, the concerned court must consider relaxing such condition on its own motion. The power to modify bail conditions lies not only with the High Court but also with other courts, including session and magistrate courts, provided the specified parameters are met. (Para 9)

Modification of Bail Conditions - Dispensing with Local Surety Requirement - The court allows the petitioner's prayer and modifies the bail condition relating to the production of a local surety within the jurisdiction of the court. Instead, the court orders that the sureties furnished by the applicant must provide documentary proof of sufficient immovable property exceeding the surety amount. The court directs an endorsement to be made on the title deed of the property, along with obtaining photographs of the surety, applicant/accused, and attesting witnesses. (Para 10)

Article 226 - Property resumed for misuse and non-payment of misuse charges - Significant delay of 10 years in filing writ petition - No sufficient cause or reasonable explanation for delay - Petitioner negligent in pursuing remedies - Petition dismissed due to laches and undue delay. [Paras 1-14]

Negative Equality - Legal Principle - Analysis - Petitioner claimed discrimination as others in the market were not similarly penalized - Right to equality is a positive concept under Article 14 and does not provide for negative equality - Authorities justified in enforcing terms of allotment and imposing misuse charges on petitioner. [Para 9]

Resumption of Property - Last Resort - Legal Consideration - Resumption of property seen as a last resort - Continuous violation of allotment terms by petitioner justified resumption - Petitioner's non-compliance with misuse charge payment led to operationalization of resumption order - Authorities acted within legal bounds. [Paras 11, 13]

Decision - Dismissal of Writ Petition - High Court dismisses the writ petition due to delay, lack of reasonable explanation, and petitioner's failure to comply with previous orders - Resumption order and related decisions upheld - No relief granted to petitioner. [Paras 14-15]