Criminal Procedure – Permission to Travel Abroad – Petitioner, facing trial and granted anticipatory bail, sought permission to travel to the USA for personal reasons – Trial Court's denial on grounds of potential abscondment reversed – High Court allows travel, imposing strict conditions to ensure return and compliance with legal obligations. [Paras 1, 2, 10, 11]

Fundamental Rights – Right to Travel – Citing precedent, the Court acknowledges the fundamental right to travel, emphasizing its importance in the context of personal life and liberty – Conditions imposed to balance this right with the need to ensure legal proceedings are not evaded. [Paras 5, 6, 7]

Judicial Discretion – Granting Permission to Travel – High Court exercises discretion favoring the petitioner’s request to travel, referencing substantial ties to the community, political career, and family events – Contrasts with the trial court's caution against potential evasion of the law. [Paras 8, 9, 10]

Bail Conditions – Compliance and Assurance – Petitioner's compliance with previous bail conditions and his substantial societal ties considered – Assurance provided by return tickets and sureties, including petitioner's wife, deemed sufficient to grant permission to travel. [Paras 2, 11]

Anticipatory Bail – Pending Application – Acknowledgment of pending anticipatory bail application – Petitioner’s commitment to return before the next hearing date noted as a factor in granting permission to travel. [Paras 2, 10]

Equality Before Law – Co-accused Granted Permission – Reference to co-accused granted permission to travel abroad used as a supporting argument for non-discriminatory treatment and equality before the law. [Paras 3, 10]

Parole – Rejection of temporary release on parole – Challenge against the Superintendent Jail’s order denying parole – Petitioner’s criminal antecedents and commission of offenses during parole considered – Petition for release on parole dismissed. [Paras 1, 14-15, 19]

Conviction – Serving life sentence – Conviction for multiple offenses including murder and Arms Act violations – Subsequent offenses committed during parole periods – Appeal dismissed by the High Court. [Para 2]

Legislation Interpretation – Interpretation of ‘hardcore convicted prisoner’ under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 – Offenses committed during parole leading to categorization as hardcore prisoner – No need for conviction in the committed offenses to fall under this category. [Paras 3, 16-18]

Criminal Justice – Conditions for temporary release on parole, furlough, emergency parole, and custody parole – Special provisions for hardcore convicted prisoners – Petitioner not entitled to regular parole under the statutory framework. [Paras 10-12]

Decision – No merit found in the petition – Petitioner’s criminal history justifies denial of parole – No writ issued for release on parole, petition dismissed. [Para 19]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proclamation Order – Petitioners declared as proclaimed persons under Section 82 Cr.P.C. in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Settlement between the parties and withdrawal of the complaint – Quashing of proclamation order due to settlement and procedural contravention. [Paras 1-2]

Compromise – Effect on Criminal Proceedings – Full and final payment received by the complainant resulting in the withdrawal of the complaint – Impact of an amicable settlement on the proclamation order issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. [Para 3]

Decision – Quashing of Proclamation Order – Present petition allowed – Impugned order dated 13.01.2021 under Section 82 Cr.P.C. quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, following a settlement between the parties. [Para 6]

Live-in Relationship and Protection of Life and Liberty – Petition under Article 226 for protection against threats from family members – Petitioners in a live-in relationship seeking mandamus against false implication in criminal cases by private respondents – Family members of petitioner No.1 threatening their lives. [Para 1-2]

Marital Status and Legal Implications – Petitioner No.2 in a subsisting marriage with a pending divorce case – Relationship with petitioner No.1 potentially constituting adultery under Sections 494/495 IPC – Court's observation on the adulterous nature of their live-in relationship. [Para 4-5]

Allegations of Threat and Lack of Evidence – Petitioners' failure to substantiate allegations of threats with convincing material – Court's reluctance to accept vague allegations without supportive evidence. [Para 6]

Judicial Discretion and Dismissal of Petition – Petition perceived as a means to circumvent criminal prosecution for adultery – Court finds no substantial grounds to grant relief, leading to dismissal of the petition. [Para 7-8]

Decision – Dismissal of petition for protection of life and liberty in a live-in relationship involving an adulterous connection, citing lack of evidence and potential legal violations. [Para 8]

Criminal Appeal – Modification of Conviction – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder, sentenced to life imprisonment and fine – Appeal for converting conviction to Section 304 Part-I IPC based on facts and circumstances. [Para 1, 3, 4]

Dispute and Incident Description – Dispute over right of way leading to altercation and shooting – Appellant's involvement in firing during the spur-of-the-moment dispute resulting in death – Initial conviction under Section 302 IPC, request for reduction to Section 304 Part-I IPC. [Para 2, 7-9]

Evidence Review – Witnesses confirming the spontaneous nature of dispute and occurrence of firing – Admission of dispute over right of way and exchange of abuses prior to the incident – Investigating officers corroborating the nature of the dispute and sequence of events. [Para 7-9]

Legal Interpretation – Determination of applicable IPC section based on nature of incident – Spontaneous dispute and absence of premeditation leading to consideration for conversion from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC. [Para 8-10]

Judgment – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder with 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine – Direction for release of appellant after completion of over 12 years in custody. [Para 11-12]

Quashing of FIR – Compromise Between Parties: Application for quashing FIR. Settlement between original complainant, relatives of the deceased, and accused, leading to withdrawal of allegations. [Para 1, 3]

Jurisprudence on Quashing Proceedings: Reference to judicial precedents for quashing proceedings in private disputes after settlement, even in cases of non-compoundable offences. [Para 4]

Objection to Quashing – Seriousness of Crime: Learned APP objected, citing the seriousness of offences under Section 306 as crimes against society, suggesting the need for trial. [Para 5]

Legal Analysis of Instigation in Suicide: Definition and analysis of 'instigation' under Section 306 of IPC, with a finding of lack of instigation in the FIR. [Para 7-9]

Settlement Impact and Legal Precedents: The settlement was noted as voluntary, with references to legal precedents on accepting compromises in personal disputes. [Para 11-12]

Exercising Inherent Powers for Justice: Application of inherent powers to quash FIR to prevent the abuse of process and secure justice. [Para 13]

Conclusion – Quashing of FIR and Release of Accused: Quashing FIR and all consequential proceedings, directing the release of the accused if not required for other cases. [Para 14-15]

Bail Application – Regular Bail – Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.197 dated 04.06.2021, under Section 17 of the NDPS Act – Petitioner in custody for over 1½ years – Allegation of false implication – Investigating officer failed to appear despite summons, bailable warrants, and warrants of arrest – Family of the petitioner in extreme hardship – Lives of 8 family members severely jeopardized due to petitioner's incarceration – Petitioner's clean antecedents – Bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act not applicable – Grant of regular bail warranted.

Criminal Procedure – Regular Bail Granted – Petitioner incarcerated for over 1.5 years without a single prosecution witness examined due to repeated non-appearance of investigating officer despite warrants – Petitioner's extreme family hardships considered – Regular bail granted, subject to trial court's conditions.

Bail Application – Delay in Trial – Adverse inference drawn against the state due to the investigating officer's non-compliance with summons and warrants – Petitioner faced extended incarceration without progress in trial – Bail application allowed on this basis.

Family Hardship – Consideration in Bail – Petitioner's significant family responsibilities and hardships detailed – Eight family members, including disabled and elderly, severely affected by petitioner's incarceration – Interim bail previously granted on these grounds – Regular bail now allowed.

NDPS Act – Section 37's Bar on Bail – Court finds reasons to believe petitioner may not be guilty, noting clean antecedents and lack of evidence from the investigating officer – Both conditions satisfied for departure from the statutory bar against bail for offenses involving commercial quantities of drugs.

Family Court Appeal – Appeals against dissolution of marriage and denial of restitution of conjugal rights allowed – Erroneous application of law and misinterpretation of facts by the Family Court corrected – Marriage dissolution set aside, restitution of conjugal rights granted. [Para 38]

Cruelty and Desertion – Insufficient evidence to support claims of cruelty and desertion by the husband – Appeals allowed due to lack of concrete evidence. [Paras 20, 27, 34]

Judicial Conduct – Misconduct in legal proceedings by the husband’s father, a judicial officer, using his position to influence the case – Consequences of such actions on the case outcome. [Paras 18-19, 25]

Evidence and Admissibility – Family Court’s decision based on assumptions without substantial evidence – High Court finds in favor of the appellant (wife) based on evidence and readiness to reconcile. [Paras 21-22, 28-29]

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Recognition of the wife’s continuous efforts to rejoin the husband, leading to the allowance of her petition for restitution of conjugal rights. [Para 38]

Petroleum Retail Outlet – Dispute over establishment and operation of fuel station – Petitioner's objection based on alleged guideline violations for distance requirements – Claims of insufficient distance from intersection and inadequate space for service road challenged. [Para 1]

Regulatory Compliance – NOC granted by Deputy Commissioner for the establishment of respondent No.10’s petrol station – Compliance with Rule 144 of Petroleum Rules, 2002, after obtaining clearances from various departments – Petitioner’s failure to utilize the appellate remedy under Rule 149 of the 2002 Rules. [Para 2]

Competition and Merit – Petitioner, a competitor to respondent No.10, alleged to be raising issues to avoid competition – State Agencies found no infirmity in the operation of the respondent’s petrol station over three years – Petition lacking merit on grounds of competition and regulatory compliance. [Para 3]

Judicial Intervention – Court’s refusal to set aside the NOC issued by the Deputy Commissioner at this advanced stage – The petrol station operating smoothly without any reported issues – Dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit and absence of infirmity in the respondent's operation. [Para 3]

Final Decision – Dismissal of the petitioner's claims against the respondent’s petrol station – Affirmation of the NOC validity – Dismissal of any pending applications related to the case. [Para 3]