Criminal Appeal - Conviction under NDPS Act – Appeal against conviction for possession of 6 kgs of ganja under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act – Trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine – Appeal dismissal upheld by High Court. [Para 1, 44-46]

Search and Seizure Compliance - Compliance with Sections 50 and 42 of NDPS Act examined – No personal search of appellant, only bag possession searched – Section 50 compliance not applicable for non-personal search – Section 42 compliance not necessary as no information of ganja stored in any building or conveyance. [Para 17-22, 26-28]

Chain of Custody and Sample Analysis – Argument on delay in sending samples and chain of custody – Samples sent promptly and chain of custody established – Chemical analysis confirmed the substance as ganja. [Para 33-34, 42]

Presumptions under NDPS Act – Invoking Section 35 and Section 54 of NDPS Act – Prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of ganja from appellant's possession – Appellant failed to probabalize contrary claims. [Para 39-41]

Conclusion - High Court found no merit in the appeal and confirmed the trial court's judgment – Directed appellant to surrender and trial court to carry out the sentence. [Para 44-48]

EWS Student Admission Dispute – Amitanjali Tiwari, represented by her mother Anjali Pandey, denied admission in Sovereign School despite eligibility – Case focuses on the school’s compliance with RTE Act for EWS category admissions – Dispute on carrying forward unfilled EWS/DG category vacancies from previous years [Paras 1-2, 8-9, 14-21, 45-48, 51-52, 58, 61-64]

RTE Act Provisions – Sections 3(1), 13(2), 2(c), 2(f), 4, 7, 8(a), 8(c), 12, 15 – Guaranteeing education at state expense for children in EWS category – Obligations of schools and governments outlined [Paras 3-5]

Carry Forward Principle Validated – Division Bench decision in Siddharth International Public School upheld – Principle allows carry forward of unfilled EWS/DG vacancies to subsequent academic year – However, applicable only if actual shortage exists [Paras 32-34, 38-39, 42-43, 62-63]

School’s Compliance with RTE Act – Sovereign School argued compliance in admitting EWS/DG students – DOE’s error in calculating unfilled vacancies for 2023-2024 – DOE’s waiver order for Sovereign School acknowledged [Paras 46-49, 51-53]

Final Decision – Amitanjali to continue in Sovereign School as EWS student for current academic year – DOE directed to ensure her admission in neighborhood school for next year – Court emphasizes protection of student’s interests amid legal and administrative complexities [Paras 58-61, 64]

Bail Application in Multiple Cases – Accused, a Drawing Teacher, alleged to have sexually assaulted minor girl students, filed bail applications in six different cases. [Para 1]

Allegations of Sexual Assault – Accusations of assaulting Vth standard students at Himayathul Islam School by touching their private parts on 12.12.2023. [Para 2]

Opposition to Bail by Public Prosecutor – Based on the nature of allegations, bail applications opposed. [Para 4]

Delay in Complaint and Doubtful Circumstances – Argument of delay in lodging complaint by six days – Doubt over the feasibility of assaulting six girls in a classroom setting – Petitioner in judicial custody since 20.12.2023. [Para 5]

Court Observation – Noted the delay in filing complaints and expressed doubts about the feasibility of the allegations; recognized substantial progress in investigation. [Para 6]

Bail Granted – Court inclined to release the petitioner on bail under strict conditions, including bond execution, reporting to investigating officer, restricted entry to school, non-interference with victims, witnesses, and investigation, surrender of passport, restricted travel, and adherence to law. [Para 6]

Bail Conditions – Detailed conditions set for bail, including financial bonds, regular reporting, geographical restrictions, non-contact with victims and witnesses, passport surrender, and travel limitations. [Para 6(i-viii)]

Violation of Bail Conditions – Provision for cancellation of bail by trial court upon violation of any set conditions. [Para 6(ix)]

Criminal Appeal – Dowry Death and Dowry Demand – Appellant convicted under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act for dowry death of his wife – Prosecution proved harassment and cruelty for additional dowry soon before death – Sentences for both offenses to run concurrently. [Paras 1-58]

Dowry Death – Essential Ingredients – Death within seven years of marriage under abnormal circumstances – Proved consumption of poison leading to death – Presence of ante-mortem injuries indicating physical harassment – Satisfies proximity test for 'soon before her death' requirement in Section 304-B IPC. [Paras 32-36, 50-52]

Harassment and Cruelty for Dowry – Prosecution established continuous harassment for additional dowry – Demands for money to purchase lands – Evidence from relatives and mediators corroborating dowry demands and physical and mental harassment soon before death. [Paras 38-42]

Sentence – Conviction under Section 304-B IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Rigorous imprisonment for seven years for Section 304-B and simple imprisonment for one year for Section 4 of D.P. Act – Sentences to run concurrently. [Para 55]

Decision – High Court upheld trial court's conviction and sentence of appellant – Appeal dismissed – Directed registry to certify judgment to trial court for execution of sentence. [Paras 56-58]

Civil Procedure – Maintainability of Suit – Suit challenging alleged partition as illegal and void, questioning lawfulness of compromise in earlier suit – Earlier suit still pending, no decree based on compromise – Held, subsequent suit not barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC – Dismissal of suit by Trial Court for lack of jurisdiction set aside, suit restored for adjudication on merits. [Para 13-15]

Compromise in Litigation – Suit challenging alleged partition based on compromise in prior pending suit – No decree passed in earlier suit based on compromise at time of filing subsequent suit – Held, subsequent suit maintainable, not barred under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC – Observations made solely for decision's correctness, not to influence pending appeal in related matter. [Para 13-15]

Jurisdiction – Suit filed for declaring alleged partition in earlier suit as illegal, invalid, and void – Trial Court dismissed suit citing lack of jurisdiction due to bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC – Held, dismissal incorrect as no decree based on compromise in earlier suit when subsequent suit filed – Subsequent suit restored for adjudication on merits. [Para 13-15]

Decision – Trial Court's order dismissing suit for lack of jurisdiction set aside – Suit challenging lawfulness of compromise in earlier suit restored for adjudication on merits – Held, no bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC when earlier suit pending without decree on compromise – Parties to bear their own costs, pending interim applications disposed of. [Para 15]

Application for Quashing FIR – Settlement of Marital Dispute – Quashing of FIR C.R. No.11191008220309 under Sections 498A, 323, 294(b), 114 of IPC and Sections 3, 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act due to amicable settlement between parties – Complaint originally filed by respondent No.2 against petitioner for dowry harassment. [Paras 1-5, 6]

Mutual Settlement – Affidavit by Complainant – Both parties resolved dispute amicably during proceedings – Complainant submitted affidavit stating no objection to quashing of proceedings. [Para 6]

Legal Principle on Quashing Proceedings – Reference to Supreme Court decisions – Criteria for exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Consideration of whether continuation of proceedings serves any purpose post-settlement. [Paras 7-9]

Application Allowed – Quashing of Impugned FIR and Consequential Proceedings – Court finds further proceedings unnecessary and harassment to petitioner – Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. allowed, quashing FIR and related proceedings. [Paras 8-10]

Release of Applicant – Direction to release the applicant from jail if not required in any other case. [Para 11]

Writ Petition for Quashing Order – Petitioner sought quashing of the order passed by State Information Commission, Haryana, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, which denied information requested under the Right to Information Act – Petitioner filed a writ in the nature of certiorari for non-compliance with the judgment in Rajwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP-17672-2023). [Para 1]

Non-compliance with Established Legal Principles – State Information Commission passed the impugned order without adhering to the guidelines laid down in Rajwinder Singh's case, which requires specific findings by appellate authorities under the Right to Information Act – Petitioner argued that the order was cryptic and non-speaking. [Para 2, 5]

Guidelines for Appellate Authorities under RTI – The High Court in Rajwinder Singh’s case provided directives for first and second appellate authorities under the RTI Act, emphasizing the need for detailed, point-wise decisions on information requests, including reasons for non-disclosure if applicable. [Para 5]

Direction for Fresh Decision – High Court set aside the impugned order for being inconsistent with legal precedents – Directed the State Information Commission, Haryana to redecide the petitioner's appeal within three months, in accordance with the principles laid down in Rajwinder Singh’s case. [Para 6]

Criminal Appeal – Regular Bail in NDPS Act Case – Petitioner seeking regular bail for possession of marginally higher than commercial quantity of narcotic substance (Alprazolam) – Arrested and previously granted interim bail but later declared a proclaimed offender – Re-arrested and incarcerated for over 7 months. [Para 1, 2, 6]

Bail Principles – Bail as a rule and jail as an exception – Emphasis on the sanctity of individual liberty and the presumption of innocence, in line with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in 'State of Rajasthan v. Balchand' and 'Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India'. Consideration of the accused's right to a speedy trial and circumstances of each case for bail decision. [Para 10-12]

Petitioner’s Circumstances – Petitioner not involved in other criminal cases of similar nature – Undergone incarceration of 7 months and 9 days – Out of 9 prosecution witnesses, 6 already examined. [Para 5, 8, 15]

Decision – Granting of regular bail to petitioner considering his previous interim bail, duration of incarceration, and marginal excess in narcotic substance possession over commercial quantity – Bail granted on furnishing of bail and surety bond, with a warning against indulgence in similar offences. [Para 16, 17]

Petition for Pension - Petitioner, a retired employee of respondent-bank, seeks pension from 01.06.2005 under the bank's pension policy, having submitted an application which is allegedly disregarded by the respondents. [Para 1-2]

Territorial Jurisdiction Questioned - Respondents argue the High Court of Punjab and Haryana lacks territorial jurisdiction as the petitioner retired from Mumbai office and resides in Canada, while mistakenly impleading Calcutta office in the petition. [Para 3]

Jurisdiction Analysis - The Court, relying on the Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim precedent (2007) 11 SCC 335, emphasizes that "part of cause of action" must arise within its jurisdiction to invoke writ jurisdiction, which is not fulfilled in this case. [Paras 5-6, 12]

Precedents Cited - References to the Kerala High Court Full Bench decision in The Registrar, Indian Maritime University vs. K.G. Viswanathan and another; 2014 SCC OnLine Ker 21221, and M/s Vijay K. Jairath And Co. Versus Union of India and Another; CWP No.12420 of 2008 regarding territorial jurisdiction. [Paras 7-8]

Dismissal of Petition - The Court concludes that no cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction, rendering the petition non-maintainable, but grants liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies as permissible by law. [Paras 9-11]