Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Petition under Section 438 CrPC - Allegations of cheating and misappropriation of funds - Petitioners accused of inducing the complainant to invest Rs. 65 lakhs in a fraudulent scheme involving the sale of onions - Petitioners submitted fictitious documents during the investigation - Apprehension of influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence - Custodial interrogation deemed necessary - Anticipatory bail denied. [Paras 1-12]

Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Judicial Discretion - Analysis - Judicial discretion to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised judiciously - Nature and gravity of the accusations, possibility of influencing witnesses, and need for custodial interrogation considered - Extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail granted only in exceptional cases - Petitioners' actions and submission of fictitious documents undermined trust in justice delivery system - Anticipatory bail rightly denied to prevent abuse of process. [Paras 7-10]

Decision - Dismissal of Anticipatory Bail Petition - High Court dismisses petition for anticipatory bail - Grave allegations of cheating and submission of fictitious documents - Custodial interrogation required for thorough investigation - Petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail - Petition dismissed and pending applications disposed of. [Paras 11-13]

Arms Act – Renewal and Cancellation of Licence – Quasi-Judicial Decisions – Writ petition challenging the orders canceling the petitioner’s arms licence and dismissing the appeal against the cancellation. The cancellation was based on the petitioner’s involvement in three FIRs, despite acquittal in all cases. Held, the cancellation order and the appellate order were non-speaking and lacked reasons, violating Section 17(5) of the Arms Act. Quasi-judicial authorities must support their conclusions with reasons. The impugned orders are set aside, and the matter is remitted for reconsideration in accordance with law, keeping in view the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act. [Paras 1-11]

Legal Requirement – Reasoned Orders – Judicial Accountability – The necessity for quasi-judicial authorities to provide reasons for their decisions is emphasized. Held, transparency and reasoned decisions are essential for judicial accountability and to maintain litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. The impugned orders did not record reasons bringing the case within the ambit of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act, rendering them non-speaking and violative of Section 17(5). [Paras 10-11]

Decision:

Impugned orders set aside. The petition is disposed of by remitting the matter to respondent No. 2 to consider it afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Arms Act. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No. 2 on April 25, 2023, at 11:00 AM. [Paras 11-12]

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Rule 4(1) of Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019 – Petition for ex-gratia employment – Rule 4(1) restricts eligibility to cases where deceased employee was less than 52 years old at the time of death – Petitioner's father was 56 years old – Petitioner not entitled to compassionate appointment – Petition dismissed. [Para 4-6]

Eligibility for Compassionate Appointment – Analysis – Rule 4(1) specifies conditions for eligibility, including age of the deceased being less than 52 years – Petitioner's father exceeded the age limit – Rule intended to provide assistance only under specified conditions – Family already receiving financial assistance under Rule 6 – Petitioner's claim for employment on compassionate grounds untenable. [Para 4-5]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Compliance with Rule 4(1) precludes petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment – Financial assistance provided to the family deemed sufficient – Petition dismissed as lacking merit. [Para 5-6]

Claim petition - Legal representatives of victim's claim - Right to pursue claim after death of victim - Similarity drawn to present suit seeking compensation for murder - Liability of defendants to pay compensation extends to other close relatives who have suffered pecuniary loss - Dismissal of suit based on death of plaintiff held unjust - Suit allowed to proceed with legal representative of deceased plaintiff. [Para 6]

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 Order 22 Rule 1 - Revision Petition - Application for impleading legal representatives of deceased plaintiff - Dismissal by trial court - Suit filed for damages on account of murder of plaintiff's son - Plaintiff's death during pendency of suit - Whether suit abated - Court's analysis of relevant judgments - Distinction drawn between present case and cases cited by respondents - Court holds that suit should not be dismissed merely due to death of plaintiff - Liability of defendants to pay compensation for wrongful act of murder continues - Order of trial court set aside - Matter remanded for impleading legal representative of deceased plaintiff and further proceedings. [Para 7]

DECISION:

Revision petition allowed - Order of trial court set aside - Matter remanded back to trial court - Legal representative of deceased plaintiff to be impleaded - Suit to proceed from stage when ordered to abate - Liability of defendants to pay compensation for wrongful act of murder continues.

Family Law - Custody of minor child - Welfare of the child as paramount consideration - Allegations of abandonment and surrender of custody by the biological mother - Interaction with the minor child and his expressed desire to stay with the present caregivers - Confirmation of interim custody to the present caregivers. [Para 1-8]

Prima facie evidence of the purported abandonment of the minor child by the petitioner - Denial of signaturing a document surrendering custody - Relegated to civil court for determination - Confirming interim custody to present caregivers. [Para 12-13]

Paramount consideration of the child's welfare and best care givings - Child Welfare Committee's report supporting the child's happiness and satisfaction with present caregivers - Sanctioning temporary custody to present caregivers. [Para 9-10]

Judgment of Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari (2019) cited - Importance of the child's wish and aspirations in determining custody - Biological parents not automatically entitled to custody if evidence of abandonment or deprivation of love and affection. [Para 14]

Application of previous judgments emphasizing the restoration of interim custody until a decision on ultimate custody by the Family Court. [Para 16-17]

Decision: The Court confirmed the interim custody of the minor child to the present caregivers, considering the paramount consideration of the child's welfare and his expressed desire to stay with them. The alleged abandonment and surrender of custody by the biological mother were taken into account, and the matter was referred to the civil court for further determination.

Termination of dealership agreement - Quashing of termination letter - Challenge to guidelines - Prayer not pressed - Petitioners appointed as dealer for sale of LPG in Hoshiarpur - Complaint received against petitioner No.2 for concealing and suppressing facts - Allegation of not being eligible for grant of LPG distributorship - Show cause notice issued - Reply filed - Dealership terminated - Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari - Scope confined to quashing of termination letter. (Para 1)

Entitlement of OCI cardholders - Rights conferred by Citizenship Act, 1955 - Section 7B - Notification issued by Central Government - Petitioner holds OCI card - Held, rights of OCI cardholders at par with that of a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) - Dealing with LPG distributorship is an economic activity for the purpose of earning livelihood - Petitioner covered under notification - Order of termination violative of notification. (Para 10)

Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorship - Clause 5.1.1 - Eligibility criteria - Indian citizen and resident of India - Corporation does not permit OCI or NRI to apply for dealership - Two options provided - 'Yes' or 'No' - Specific format of affidavit provided - Petitioner No.2 filled application form and affidavit in prescribed format - Affidavit states petitioner is an Indian citizen and is residing in India - Processed on the basis of application and affidavit - Partnership entered into with wife - Later discovered petitioner No.2 not a citizen of India. (Para 18)

Petition Dismissed.

Land Law – Consolidation – Limitation and Jurisdiction – Articles 226 – Sections 22 and 42 of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 – Petition to quash orders providing new passage/rasta to private respondents – Motion for correction made after 49 years – Delay unreasonable – Original rasta provided in consolidation scheme and no obstruction found – Authorities lacked jurisdiction to alter revenue rasta – Petition allowed. [Para 8-13]

Limitation – Delay and Laches – Section 42 of Act of 1948 – No fixed period of limitation – Motion for correction must be within reasonable time – 49 years delay deemed unreasonable – Gross delay and laches bar relief – Motion not entertained. [Para 8-10]

Jurisdiction – Consolidation Authorities – Section 22 of Act of 1948 – Authorities can provide rasta only if no revenue rasta in consolidation scheme or obstruction exists – Existing rasta provided and no obstruction found – Authorities lacked jurisdiction to alter rasta – Alteration permissible only by civil court decree. [Para 12-13]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Impugned orders quashed – Authorities' actions beyond jurisdiction – Private respondents may seek relief through civil court – Petition allowed. [Para 14-15]

Criminal Law - Quashing of Complaint and Summoning Order - Petition under Section 482 CrPC - Complaint against company officials for offenses under Sections 120-B, 406, and 420 IPC - Magistrate conducted inquiry under Section 202 CrPC - Police report and documents examined - Magistrate found sufficient material to proceed - Petitioners' claim of non-consideration of police report and plea of force majeure rejected - Continuation of proceedings upheld - Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-48]

Inquiry under Section 202 CrPC - Legal Requirement - Analysis - Inquiry under Section 202 CrPC conducted - Police report called for and documents secured - Magistrate's satisfaction based on statements and documents - Prima facie case established - Summoning order issued after judicial application of mind - No illegality or perversity found in the impugned order - Petition dismissed. [Paras 18-22, 42-43]

Force Majeure and Jurisdiction - Legal Consideration - Plea of force majeure and non-submission to jurisdiction rejected - Arbitral Tribunal's decision against the petitioners - Process cannot be scuttled on these grounds - Petitioners' claim deemed an attempt to trivialize the issue. [Paras 33-34, 44]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition - High Court dismisses the petition challenging the complaint and summoning order - Continuation of prosecution deemed appropriate - No abuse of process of law found - Petition and pending applications disposed of. [Paras 48-50]

Criminal Law - Quashing of Complaint and Summoning Order - Petition under Section 482 CrPC - Complaint against Independent Director of company for offenses under Sections 120-B, 406, and 420 IPC - Petitioner served as Independent Director from 04.07.2018 to 14.02.2020 - Alleged offenses occurred between 2006 and 2017, prior to petitioner's involvement with the company - No material evidence indicating petitioner's active or passive participation in the crime - Continuation of proceedings deemed abuse of process of law - Complaint and summoning order quashed - Petition allowed. [Paras 1-19]

Role of Independent Director - Legal Analysis - Offenses occurred before petitioner's tenure as Director - No evidence of petitioner's knowledge or involvement in alleged criminal activities - Allegations based on vague and inferential assertions - Independent Director's responsibility does not extend to acts committed before their tenure - Absence of communication from complainant to petitioner about ongoing disputes - Judicial discretion exercised to prevent misuse of legal process - Summoning order and complaint quashed to prevent harassment. [Paras 6-15]

Decision - Quashing of Complaint and Summoning Order - High Court quashes complaint dated 04.01.2020 and summoning order dated 28.07.2021 against petitioner - Proceedings deemed an abuse of process of law - Petition allowed and pending applications disposed of. [Paras 18-19]