Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet - Petition under Section 482 CrPC - Criminal Appeal against the order of High Court refusing to quash FIR for abetment of suicide - FIR lodged for offenses under Sections 306, 506, and 34 IPC - Complainant filed no objection to the quashing of FIR - Allegations in suicide note and FIR vague and do not attract Section 306 IPC - Compromise reached between the parties - Held that compelling petitioners to undergo trial would serve no useful purpose - Quashing of proceedings deemed necessary to prevent abuse of process of court - Petition allowed. [Paras 1-36]

Abetment of Suicide - Essential Elements - Analysis - To constitute an offense under Section 306 IPC, there must be an abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC - No specific instances of instigation, provocation, goading, or urging by the petitioners leading to the suicide - Mere allegations of disturbance and irritation not sufficient to establish the offense of abetment - Mens rea essential for establishing guilt under Section 306 IPC absent - Suicide note and allegations not substantiated by complainant in court - No positive action by petitioners proximate to the time of occurrence leading to the suicide - Allegations in FIR do not constitute offense under Section 306 IPC. [Paras 6-20]

Compromise Between Parties - Legal Effect - Compromise between complainant and petitioners - Statements recorded before Additional Sessions Judge affirming voluntary nature of compromise without coercion or pressure - Complainant gave no objection to quashing of FIR - Petitioners filed amended petition seeking quashing on merits - Court satisfied that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law - FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed. [Paras 21-27]

Decision - Quashing of FIR and Subsequent Proceedings - Court quashes FIR No.16 dated 02.03.2014 and all consequential proceedings - Continuation of prosecution deemed an abuse of process of law - Petition allowed and pending applications disposed of. [Paras 34-36]

Service Law - Recruitment Process - Petition under Article 226 - Petitioners appeared in CET for Group-C posts, including VLDA - Failed to achieve qualifying marks - Sought relaxation from CET requirement for skill/written exam - High Court dismisses petition - Requirement of eligibility test upheld as essential to gauge candidates' capability - Petitioners cannot seek exclusion of VLDA posts from CET after failing the test - Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-7]

Eligibility Test - Importance and Legal Principles - Analysis - Eligibility test crucial for large applicant pools - Sifts capable candidates from others - Granting relaxation would nullify recruitment process - Failing candidates cannot later challenge test subjects or seek exclusion of specific posts - Test subjects are part of recruitment criteria - Relaxation not permitted post-test participation. [Paras 6-7]

Decision - Dismissal of Writ Petition - High Court finds no merit in petitioners' prayers - Upholds requirement of qualifying CET for skill/written examination - Petition dismissed. [Para 7]

Quashing of Government Orders – Ownership and Possession of Land – First Appeal against Trial Court Decree – Land in Bhopal under Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 – High Court upholds trial court’s decree in favor of respondents – Orders by state authorities regarding land declared null and void post-repeal of Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1999 – Respondents' ownership and possession rights over disputed land confirmed. [Paras 1-22]

Validity of Government Action – Post-Repeal Scenario – Analysis – High Court finds actions of state authorities invalid post-repeal of Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1999 – No lawful basis for state's claim over the land post-repeal – Upholds the trial court's findings on ownership and possession by respondents. [Paras 11, 15, 16]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – High Court dismisses appeal by state – Affirms trial court's decree favoring respondents – Respondents retain ownership and possession of the disputed land – State's orders post-1999 repeal found ineffective. [Paras 21-22]

Civil Procedure - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Suit for permanent injunction to restrain encroachment - Trial Court dismissed suit for lack of proof of possession by plaintiff - First Appellate Court allowed appeal holding plaintiff in possession - Appellants claimed possession through acts of tying cattle and placing cow dung cakes - Such acts not considered proof of exclusive possession - Plaintiff’s title established, hence possession presumed - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Possession and Title - Legal Principles - Analysis - Tethering of cattle and making cow dung cakes over open land not exclusive possession - Common practice in villages, not indicative of ownership - Legal principle that possession follows title applied - Plaintiff’s title established through unchallenged evidence - Possession presumed to follow title. [Paras 18-19]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal - High Court dismisses appeal - First Appellate Court’s findings upheld - Plaintiff’s title and possession confirmed - Appellants failed to produce convincing evidence of possession - Appeal dismissed and miscellaneous applications disposed of. [Paras 18-19]

Service Law - Eligibility for Promotion - AMIE Certificate - Petitioner reverted from Superintending Engineer to Executive Engineer due to lack of degree in engineering—Petitioner holds AMIE certificate, argued to be equivalent to a degree—Court held that AMIE certificate may be equivalent but is not a degree—Rules require a degree in engineering for promotion to Superintending Engineer—Court cannot add or modify qualifications prescribed by the competent rule-making body—Petition dismissed​​.

Interpretation of Statutory Rules - Degree vs. Equivalent Qualification - Held, court cannot interpret rules to include equivalent qualifications where the rule explicitly requires a degree—AMIE certificate, though recognized as equivalent, is not a degree and does not fulfill the statutory requirement—Court emphasized the need for strict adherence to rule language and legislative intent—Rule-making body intentionally distinguished between degree holders and those with equivalent qualifications for promotion​​.

Decision - Writ petitions dismissed—Reversion to the post of Executive Engineer upheld—AMIE certificate does not meet the specific qualification requirement of a degree in engineering for the promotion to Superintending Engineer—Rules must be applied as written without judicial alteration​​.

Grant of parole - Sections 21, 23, 28, 29, 60, 61, 63 of the NDPS - Challenge to declining order of parole - Whether declining order was ill-informed and not founded on credible material - Reasons given for denying parole based on mere apprehensions - No adverse report by Superintendent of Jail concerning petitioner's conduct - Order suffers from non-application of mind - Petition allowed and petitioner ordered to be released on parole for eight weeks subject to certain conditions - Petitioner to furnish personal and surety bonds and undertake to return to prison at the end of the parole period - Liberty reserved to SHO to arrest petitioner if conditions breached - Criminal appeal pending before the Court - allowed - Order of declining parole set aside.

Constitutional Law - Writ Petition - Suppression of Material Facts - Criminal Antecedents - Petition seeking quashing of verbal orders not to report for duty and preventing replacement by another contractual employee—Petitioner failed to disclose involvement in a criminal case (FIR No. 178 dated 30.03.2017 under Sections 306, 420, and 406 IPC) and custody from 06.04.2017 to 13.09.2017—Court held that suppression of material facts disqualifies petitioner from discretionary relief—Petition dismissed​​.

Duty of Full Disclosure - Judicial Discretion and Conduct of Petitioner - Held, a petitioner seeking discretionary relief must disclose all material facts—By concealing criminal antecedents, the petitioner misled the Court—Court has no sympathy for such conduct—Petition dismissed to uphold the integrity of judicial process​​.

Decision - Petition dismissed due to non-disclosure of criminal case and custody—Petitioner not entitled to discretionary relief from the Court—Conduct deemed an attempt to mislead and hoodwink the Court​​.

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Limitation Period - Excise Act - Petition for quashing FIR registered under Punjab Excise Act—FIR registered on 25.08.2016, challan presented on 23.02.2021—Cognizance taken barred by limitation under Section 75(2) of the Punjab Excise Act and Section 468 CrPC—Special sanction time exclusion plea untenable as limitation period had expired—FIR quashed​​.

Excise Law - Cognizance and Limitation - Special Sanction and Delay - Held, prosecution under Punjab Excise Act must be initiated within one year unless special sanction is obtained—Even with exclusion of time for obtaining sanction, cognizance period under Section 468 CrPC expired—Special sanction does not extend period for launching prosecution beyond three years—No satisfaction recorded by Magistrate for delay under Section 473 CrPC—Prosecution deemed barred by limitation​​.

Decision - FIR No. 60 dated 25.08.2016 and consequential proceedings quashed—Cognizance barred by limitation—Plea of exclusion of sanction period rejected—Magistrate did not record necessary satisfaction for delay—Petition allowed to prevent abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice​​.

Default Bail – Section 167(2) Cr.P.C and Section 36-A of the NDPS Act – Petitioner’s application for default bail dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad – Revision petition filed challenging the order. [Para 1]

Factual Background – Petitioner arrested under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act – Challan presented on 05.05.2022 without accompanying FSL report, submitted later on 16.12.2022 – Petitioner claims an indefeasible right to default bail upon the expiry of 180 days as per Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. [Para 3, 4]

Legal Precedent – Reference to Ajit Singh @ Jeeta v. State of Punjab, CRR No.4659 of 2015 – Emphasis on the necessity of FSL report for a complete challan and its implications for default bail. [Para 6]

Decision – Impugned order dated 15.10.2022 set aside – Petitioner granted default bail subject to furnishing requisite bonds – Indefeasible right to default bail acknowledged, in line with legal precedent. [Para 7-8]