Urban Development – Building Plan Sanction – Transferable Development Rights (TDR) – Retrospective Application of Setback Norms – Modified Plan Submitted in 2014 – BBMP Rejected on Grounds that it Violated Post-2017 Rules Capping Setback Relaxation at 25% – Single Judge Allowed Petition Citing Application Date as Relevant – Division Bench Held: Plan Must Comply with Law at Time of Sanction, Not at Time of Application – Appeal Allowed – Prior Decision in Aishwarya Heights Overruled [Paras 2–5, 21–26, 31–32, 35].

Land Use and Planning – Prospective vs. Retrospective Application of Planning Laws – Amended Section 14B of KTCP Act and 2016 Rules Held Applicable to All Plans Pending at Time of Sanction – No Vested Right to Have Plan Approved Under Earlier Rules – Legitimate Expectation Does Not Override Express Statutory Mandate – Settled Legal Position Reaffirmed [Paras 25–30].

Judicial Precedents – Vested Right Argument Rejected – Reliance on Aishwarya Heights Misplaced – Supreme Court in Howrah Municipal Corp., Usman Gani J. Khatri, and NDMC v. Tanvi Trading Held That Building Plans Must Comply With Law at Time of Approval – Karnataka High Court Overrules Aishwarya Heights to Conform with Binding Supreme Court Precedent [Paras 27–31].

Contempt of Court – Failure to Approve Plan Based on Single Judge’s Order – Contempt Petition Filed Alleging Non-Compliance – Held: As Judgment Below is Set Aside, No Wilful Disobedience Exists – Contempt Petition Closed [Paras 35–36].

Decision: Writ Appeal Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – Modified Plan Not Sanctionable Under 2016 Rules – Aishwarya Heights Overruled – CCC No. 1332 of 2024 Closed – Pending Applications Disposed.

Civil Law – Impleadment – SCC Suit – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Lessees not necessary party – Petitioner-tenant sought to implead third-party lessees claiming rights under a registered lease deed – Revisional court remanded matter for fresh consideration – Held: Lease was time-bound and conditional with limited rights; right to prosecute and title remained with landlord – Lessees not necessary parties in summary eviction suit where tenancy is admitted – Application rightly rejected [Paras 4–5, 20, 33–35]

Tenancy Law – Scope of SCC Proceedings – Jurisdiction limited to landlord-tenant disputes – Questions of title or third-party claims not within scope of adjudication – SCC Court not competent to adjudicate complex title issues or implead parties lacking direct interest in tenancy [Paras 10, 29–30, 32]

Transfer of Property Act – Section 109 – Applicability – Rights of lessor’s transferee – Section 109 applies in absence of contract to the contrary – Present lease contains explicit clauses retaining prosecution rights with lessor and restricting transfer rights of lessee – Held: Lessees do not step into landlord’s shoes for purposes of tenancy litigation [Paras 21–22]

Doctrine of Dominus Litis – Plaintiff’s discretion in impleadment – Plaintiff-landlord cannot be compelled to implead third party unless they are necessary for effective adjudication – Petitioner-tenant has no locus to seek impleadment of alleged lessees where they themselves have not approached the court – Petitioner cannot set up third party’s case [Paras 11, 34]

Distinction from Cited Authorities – Supreme Court’s ruling in State of U.P. v. 14th ADJ, Agra not applicable – That case involved perpetual lease amounting to virtual sale – Present lease is conditional, limited in duration and rights – Other cases cited by petitioner distinguishable on facts or context [Paras 19–28]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No illegality in rejection of impleadment application – Lessees not necessary party in admitted tenancy dispute – No costs [Paras 35–36]

Criminal Writ – Premature Release – Policy Implementation – Life convict Ramji’s claim for premature release rejected by Government of Punjab despite eligibility under 1991 Policy – Rejection order dated 17.12.2024 found cryptic, unreasoned, and mechanically based on opinion of Presiding Judge and Committee – Held: Rejection order unsustainable for being non-speaking and devoid of application of mind – Matter remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law [Paras 5–10, 13].

Administrative Law – Natural Justice – Speaking Order – Right to Personal Liberty – Court reiterates that administrative/quasi-judicial orders must be reasoned and cannot rest on ipse dixit – Held: Absence of clear reasoning in executive orders, especially those affecting liberty, violates Article 21 and the principles of natural justice – Order must reflect due consideration of facts and relevant policies [Paras 10–11].

Delay and Administrative Apathy – Procedural Lapses – Respondent authorities delayed processing of petitioner’s release case for over 18 months due to repeated inter-departmental lapses – Held: Authorities displayed lackadaisical approach in discharging statutory duties, causing prejudice to petitioner – Costs of ₹25,000 imposed on State of Punjab for delay and administrative torpor [Paras 6, 12–13].

Remand and Relief – Reconsideration Directed – High Court sets aside rejection order and directs State to decide afresh within four weeks – Compliance affidavit to be filed by Home Secretary, Punjab within six weeks, failing which punitive consequences may follow [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Conviction under Section 149 IPC Unsustainable in Absence of Shared Intent – Acquittal Ordered – Appellants convicted along with others for murder under Sections 148, 304 Part I/149 and 323/149 IPC – Trial court applied vicarious liability under Section 149 based on presence at scene – Appellate court held that fatal injuries were inflicted solely by two co-accused (now deceased) – No overt act, shared intent, or deadly weapon attributed to present appellants – Held: Mere presence without active participation or common object insufficient to attract liability under Section 149 IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 3.1–3.7, 5–8].

Constructive Liability – Section 149 IPC – Applicability Requires Proof of Unlawful Assembly, Common Object, and Knowledge of Likely Offence – Reiterated that liability under Section 149 cannot be stretched to convict passive bystanders or those with no criminal intent – Citing Zainul v. State of Bihar, Mizaji v. State of U.P., and Subal Ghorai cases – Held: Prosecution failed to prove appellants were members of unlawful assembly with intent to kill – Acquittal warranted [Paras 3.5–3.8, 4–6].

Evidence – Ocular and Medical Evidence – Fatal Blows Attributed to Co-accused Only – No Role Ascribed to Surviving Appellants – Post-mortem report revealed only two blows leading to death – Both ascribed to two now-deceased accused – No evidence linking appellants Ram Swaroop, Dalip Singh, and Tara Chand to the assault – No weapons recovered from them – Held: Trial court erred in applying collective liability mechanically [Paras 3.1, 5–6].

Principle – Rule of Prudence in Section 149 IPC Cases – Courts Must Guard Against Convicting Innocent Bystanders Based on Proximity Alone – Presence at the scene without participation or shared object does not establish guilt – Doctrine of caution to be applied in cases involving large number of accused – Held: Prosecution failed to produce credible material to show appellants shared the common object – Acquittal justified [Paras 3.8, 6–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 148, 304 Part I/149, and 323/149 IPC set aside – Appellants Ram Swaroop, Dalip Singh, and Tara Chand acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged – Directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC to secure presence in case of further appeal [Paras 9–10].

Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Wife Residing Separately – Sufficient Cause Established – Wife ousted from matrimonial home due to cruelty and dowry harassment – Trial Court erred in holding she left without cause – Allegations substantiated by her continued attempts at reconciliation and absence of effort by husband to resume cohabitation – Held: Findings of Family Court contrary to evidence – Wife had sufficient cause to live separately [Paras 5, 10].

Maintenance – Quantum – Financial Capacity of Parties – Petitioner a qualified homeopathic doctor pursuing postgraduate education, temporarily engaged during COVID-19 with stipend, but currently unemployed – Respondent working as Technician (Mechanical) at ONGC earning ₹74,000/month – Held: Wife entitled to ₹15,000/month maintenance excluding period she received stipend – Subject to modification under Section 127 CrPC in case of change in circumstances [Paras 9, 11].

Marital Obligations – Gender Equality – Marital relationship does not negate wife’s right to develop herself – Husband’s duty extends to supporting wife’s educational and professional growth – Allegations of wife's desire to live separately from in-laws not supported by evidence – Court stresses on equality and mutual support in marriage [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal revision partly allowed – Order of Family Court rejecting maintenance set aside – Maintenance of ₹15,000/month awarded to wife from date of application, excluding period of COVID-19 stipend – Subject to future modification under law [Para 12].

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 – Rejection of Bail – 500 grams of Mephedrone recovered from applicant’s conscious possession – Seizure made in presence of panch witnesses after informing accused of rights under Section 50 – Contraband verified and certified by Magistrate under Section 52A – Chemical Analyzer’s report confirmed presence of Mephedrone and Methamphetamine – Held: Recovery from applicant is prima facie established – Mandatory twin conditions under Section 37 not satisfied – Bail rejected [Paras 1–8, 31–38].

Presumption under Section 54 – Burden on Accused – No Explanation Offered – Rebuttal Not Established – Possession of Narcotic Substance from Applicant’s Person Not Denied – Held: Mere denial insufficient – No plausible explanation for possession offered by applicant – Presumption under Section 54 applicable [Paras 28–29].

Prior Criminal Antecedents – Relevant for Likelihood of Reoffending – Applicant had three prior NDPS cases – Court held prior conduct relevant under second limb of Section 37 – Bail denied on ground that applicant likely to reoffend [Paras 24, 32].

Field Test & Delay in Sending Samples – Not Fatal to Prosecution – Forensic Report Confirmed Substance – Court held field test is not conclusive proof – Delay in sending sample not material where seal intact and certified by Magistrate – Chemical Analyzer’s report prevails [Paras 14–17, 21].

Procedural Compliance – Sections 42, 50, and 52A – Search and Seizure Conducted Lawfully – Recovery made after information recorded under Section 42(2) – Rights under Section 50 explained – Contraband sealed and produced before Magistrate – Inventory and photographs certified under Section 52A – Held: Procedural safeguards followed, no prejudice caused to accused [Paras 2–3, 9–13].

Public Interest vs. Personal Liberty – Balancing under NDPS Act – Court reiterated that in serious drug offences, personal liberty must yield to larger societal interest – Held: Bail not routine – No exceptional circumstances made out to override bar under Section 37 [Paras 33–36].

Decision: Bail Application dismissed – Applicant found in possession of commercial quantity of narcotics – No reasonable ground to believe he is not guilty or unlikely to reoffend – Section 37 bar attracted – Application rejected.

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Dishonour of Cheque – Maintainability – Applicant filed for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against acquittal in complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act – Held: In view of the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, complainant in a cheque dishonour case is a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC – Such victim has an unconditional right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without needing leave of the High Court – Application to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC and transferred to Sessions Court for disposal on merits [Paras 1–5].

Victim’s Right to Appeal – Section 372 CrPC – Supreme Court clarified that a complainant in a Section 138 N.I. Act case qualifies as a "victim" and thus can file appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC – Requirement of special leave under Section 378(4) does not apply – Reiterated by High Court in Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kishore, Ajmer Kundu (deceased) through LRs v. Pardeep Sharma, and Raj Kumar v. Rajender [Paras 2–4].

Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction – Appeal Transferred – Application treated as appeal under Section 372 CrPC and directed to be placed before Sessions Judge, Ambala – Registry directed to transmit record and paper-book – Applicant directed to appear before Sessions Court on specified date – No opinion expressed on merits [Paras 5–7].

Decision: Application disposed of – Treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC – Ordered to be transferred to Sessions Judge, Ambala for adjudication in accordance with law – Applicant directed to appear on 14.11.2025 – Registry to transmit complete record.

Criminal Law - POCSO Act – Age Determination – Mandatory Compliance – Conviction set aside – Appellant convicted under Sections 448, 323 IPC and Sections 8, 12 of POCSO Act for alleged trespass and sexual assault on a minor girl – No school certificate, birth certificate or ossification test produced as required under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act – Held: Age of victim not proved as per statutory requirements – Conviction under POCSO Act unsustainable [Paras 17-20, 26].

Witness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – Contradictory Statements – Sole Testimony Unreliable – Mother of victim (PW2) and neighbours (PWs 3, 4, 6) turned hostile – Victim (PW1) gave court testimony contradicting original complaint, stating the injury occurred during a public quarrel regarding money – Held: Sole testimony of victim insufficient and unreliable when contradicted by medical and witness evidence [Paras 21-24].

False Implication – Suppression of Counter-Complaint – Misuse of POCSO Act – Accused sustained head injuries during quarrel and lodged complaint against victim’s family – FIR (Ex.D1) against complainant’s family closed after POCSO case was registered – Held: Likely misuse of POCSO Act to neutralize genuine complaint by accused – Courts must remain vigilant to prevent misuse of special legislation [Paras 29-31].

Injury – Section 323 IPC – No Clear Evidence – Acquittal Warranted – Injury to victim found to be simple – No consistent or credible evidence linking it to accused – Held: Conviction under Section 323 IPC not safe – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25, 28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under IPC and POCSO Act set aside – Accused acquitted – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Bail bond cancelled [Para 32].

Criminal Law – Cognizance – Quashing of Summoning Order – Dispute Related to Temple Management – Complaint alleged encroachment, criminal intimidation, and physical assault by petitioner due to a temple management dispute – Petitioner’s father had been appointed trustee of Kali Mandir by Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts – Prior civil litigation in favour of petitioner – Petitioner claimed complaint was mala fide, lodged out of vengeance after losing civil dispute – Held: Magistrate failed to consider material background facts and prior civil proceedings while taking cognizance – Allegations general and lacking specificity – Order of cognizance dated 16.11.2024 set aside [Paras 1–17].

Abuse of Process – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Apex Court decisions in Paramjeet Batra and Kailashben Patel applied – Criminal proceedings not to be used to settle scores arising from temple trustee appointments – Complaint revealed civil dispute dressed up as criminal allegations without sufficient criminal ingredients – Revisional Court and Magistrate both erred in not examining background circumstances – Magistrate directed to reconsider matter afresh with notice to all parties and full application of judicial mind [Paras 12–17].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Magistrate’s Cognizance Order on Remand – Revisional Court had earlier remanded matter for reconsideration due to procedural lapses – Magistrate again took cognizance without addressing civil context or mala fides – Quashing application allowed – Magistrate to issue fresh order after hearing all parties and evaluating complete factual background [Paras 6–9, 16–18].

Decision:

Order taking cognizance dated 16.11.2024 set aside – Contesting parties directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalsinghsarai – Magistrate to issue notices, apply judicial mind, and pass a fresh order considering all relevant facts and background circumstances – Quashing application disposed of accordingly.