Karnataka Minister BZ Zameer Ahmed Khan tendered an apology on Tuesday for referring to Union Minister and JD(S) leader HD Kumaraswamy as "Kaalia", which the NDA had slammed as a "racist" slur.

Kannada superstar Shivarajkumar, who is awaiting the release of his much-anticipated film ‘Bhairathi Ranagal’, has said that he is set to undergo a surgery for his illness

Tentatively called D55, the film is produced by Sushmita Anbuchezian under the Gopuram Films banner

Kannada Power Star and a fitness enthusiast i Puneeth Rajkumar /i anchored an exemplary paradigm even after his death as he donated his eyes. The

Rocking Star Yash and Power Star Puneeth Rajkumar took part in the 6th anniversary celebration of Hombale Films, which made blockbuster movies like Raajakumara and KGF: Chapter 1.

Vanitha Vijayakumar has tied the knot to her boyfriend Peter Paul on Saturday, 27 June. They took the wedding vows in the presence of their close friends and relatives.

The Raazi director Meghana Gulzar is all set to make an action thriller based on a real-life incident, starring Kareena Kapoor in the lead role and also having Prithviraj in an important role in the film.

The Janata Dal (S) demanded public apology and resignation of Minister for Waqf and Tourism Zameer Ahmad Khan over his racist remarks against Union Minister HD Kumaraswamy.

A major revolution has been carried out in building a healthy India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi's leadership, stated Union Minister for Heavy Industries and Steel H. D. Kumaraswamy on Tuesday.

1. Sri Lanka’s multi-ethnic east reflects challenges facing Anura Kumara Dissanayake  The Hindu
2. Sri Lanka's leftist president faces first parliament test  Hindustan Times
3. Sri Lanka Election: ‘Progress over corruption’, litmus test for Anura Dissanayake as voters head to polls on November 14  Mint
4. Sri Lanka set for parliamentary election, all arrangements in place  Deccan Chronicle
5. Sri Lanka President holds more pledges as campaigning closed for parliamentary poll  ThePrint

08.11.2024

01. Impugned in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an order of Central Administrative Tribunal ["The Tribunal'] dated 04.11.2024 in OA No. 61/1175/2024 titled 'Kuldeep Kumar Vs. U.T. of J&K and Ors.', whereby the Tribunal has declined to grant ad-interim ex-parte stay, staying the communications of the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua dated 15.10.2024 addressed to the Director, Anti- Corruption Bureau, J&K and Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Jammu.

02. The application for interim relief is still pending and the same will come up for consideration before the Tribunal after the respondents appear and file their objections. Ordinarily, such ad-interim ex-parte orders are not interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, having regard to the fact that the registration of FIR either by the Crime Branch or by the ACB in terms of communications of the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua in OA will seriously prejudice the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the application for interim relief pending before the Tribunal by providing as under:-

(12.11.2024)

01. Petitioners, Ankush Kumar and Isha Devi, claim that they, being major, have contracted marriage in accordance with Hindu rites, against the wishes of their relatives, out of their free will and are living as husband and wife, but are apprehensive to be subjected to physical violence and harassment by such relatives, therefore seeking protection and security cover from respondent No.1.

02. Heard and perused the record annexed with the writ petition.

03. When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is manifestation of their choice that is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Such right has the sanction of constitutional law and once that is recognized, said right needs to be protected and it cannot succumb to conception of class honour or group thinking. Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock and their consent has to be piously given primacy. The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and values it stands for.

1. The present petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') against the judgment dated 24.05.2023 (hereafter 'impugned order') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), South West, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in CA No. 101/2021 titled Satish Kumar Jain vs. Jugal Kishore & Anr.

2. By impugned order, the learned ASJ dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 07.03.2020 and order on sentence dated 28.08.2021, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ('MM'), Dwarka Courts, Delhi whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act').

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present CRL. MC. 4315/2023 filed by the Petitioner - Mr. Sanjeev Kumar under Section 482 of CrPC, arises out of a complaint being CT No. 2592/2018 filed by the Petitioner before the ld. CMM, South, Saket Courts, against his wife - Ms. Alka Singh and her family including her father- Mr. Viri Singh, her mother - Ms. Amar Kaur, her brother - Mr. Akhilesh Singh and her brother-in-law - Mr. Praveen Kumar.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Simri PS case no. 79 of 2024, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354(D), 509, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution story, as per the First Information Report, is that petitioner was teasing and stalking the informant for the last two years and when the informant protested, the petitioner threatened to make her photograph viral on the social media. On 17.04.2024, while the informant was going towards the house of her friend, petitioner and his friend followed her and made vulgar comments and upon protest, they assaulted her brutally. It has further been alleged that on 21.04.2024 in the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70435 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 morning, the petitioner along with other accused persons armed with lathi, danda and sharp cutting weapon came at the door of the informant and assaulted her family members.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable u/s 323, 307, 341, 379, 504, 506/34 of IPC.

3. Allegedly, petitioner along with other co-accused persons have abused and assaulted the informant and other persons with rod, brick and stones. It is further alleged that co-accused Maya Kumari took away locket and jiuitia of Rekha Kumari.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. It is also submitted that occurrence took place on 04.11.2024 but FIR has been Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76808 of 2024(2) dt.12-11-2024 lodged on 17.11.2023 i.e after the delay of 13 days. There is no explanation of delay in lodging the FIR. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Konch Police Station Case No. 245 of 2024, dated 10.06.2024, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 147/149/341/323/307/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that on 10.06.2024, the informant, along with his cousin brother, was sitting at his door, in the mean while, his neighbour, Shiv Kumar Prasad, along with other accused persons, including the petitioner, arrived there with lathi, danda, iron-rod, surrounded the cousin brother of the informant, abused him and assaulted him with lathi, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73971 of 2024(2) dt.12-11-2024 danda and iron-rod.

Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Bairiya P.S. Case No.153 of 2024, registered Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75612 of 2024(2) dt.11-11-2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 147/149/341/323/324/325/307/435/379/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against fourteen named accused persons including the present petitioners with allegation that they have reached at the land of the informant and made the hut. Scuffling took place and the petitioners had attacked on the informant and others, due to which some persons were injured. Names were specifically mentioned in the FIR.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable u/s 341/ 323/ 307/ 385/ 504/ 506/34 of the IPC and added Section 302 of IPC.

3. Allegedly, all the F.I.R. named accused persons including the petitioner entered the house of informant and started assaulting the informant and others with lathi, danda and iron rods due to which informant and others got injured and four months later, the informant died.

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 318 of 2024 for the offence punishable under sections 341, 307, 195A, 120B, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 01.04.2024 by the informant, Binod Rai.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that as he was sleeping in his office, Rahul Kumar alongwith other accused came and Rahul Kumar opened fire causing injury. Rahul Kumar was again loading another cartridge when an alarm was raised whereafter, they escaped. This led to the FIR.

Heard Mr. Sharad Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Forest Case No.78-F of 2021, registered u/s 2, 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (as amended by Bihar Amendment Act, 1990) and 2, 27, 29, 31, 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (as amended by Amending Act, 2006).

3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application.

4. Permission is granted.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 323, 341, 406, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the FIR, the allegation against the petitioners is that after receiving the consideration money of Rs. 17,90,000 from the informant they executed the sale deed in favour of other persons and did not return the aforesaid amount to the informant.

1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 482 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.359/2024, registered at the Police Station Bassi Jaipur City (East), District Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) & 352 of BNS.

2. Heard.

3. Considered.

4. On perusal of the contents of the F.I.R., it is revealed that no specific overt act has been assigned to the accused-petitioners and the accused-petitioners are both women. The alleged incident has taken place all of a sudden at an agricultural field.

5. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and [2024:RJ-JP:46170] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-12586/2024] circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that the accused-petitioners both are women and no specific overt act has been assigned to the accused-petitioners in the First Information Report, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Meghraj Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.437/2024, registered at the Police Station Niwai, District Tonk for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 25(1)(b) & 25(8) of Arms Act.

2. Heard.

3. Considered.

4. Having regard the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner so also the fact that no recovery has been effective from the accused-petitioner and more particularly the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 24.10.2024 and the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, [2024:RJ-JP:46153] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-13722/2024] deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Meghraj Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/11/2024

1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.438/2024, registered at the Police Station Niwai, District Tonk for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 25(1)(b) & 25(8) of Arms Act.

2. Heard.

3. Considered.

4. Having regard the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner so also the fact that no recovery has been effective from the accused-petitioner and more particularly the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 24.10.2024 and the accused-petitioner is in custody since long time, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, [2024:RJ-JP:46152] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-13712/2024] deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.A. 171/2022 & CRL.A. 160/2023

2. These are two appeals filed by the Appellant- Sanjev Kumar under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'SC/ST Act'). The aforesaid appeals arise out of Complaint Case no. 592/2018 before the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts.

3. In CRL.A. 171/2022, the Appellant challenges the interim order dated 16th October, 2021, passed by the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts, in the aforesaid complaint case, whereby the application seeking summoning of SI Satish Lohia as an accused under Section 319 of CrPC was dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arbitration Appeals No. 8 & 47 of 2024 Decided on 05.11.2024 ________________________________________________________________

1. Arbitration Appeal No.8 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant Versus Rakesh Kumar and Another ...Respondents

2. Arbitration Appeal No.47 of 2024 National Highway Authority of India. ...Appellant Versus Maya Devi and others ...Respondents Coram:

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.A. 171/2022 & CRL.A. 160/2023

2. These are two appeals filed by the Appellant- Sanjev Kumar under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'SC/ST Act'). The aforesaid appeals arise out of Complaint Case no. 592/2018 before the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts.

3. In CRL.A. 171/2022, the Appellant challenges the interim order dated 16th October, 2021, passed by the ld. ASJ, South, Saket Courts, in the aforesaid complaint case, whereby the application seeking summoning of SI Satish Lohia as an accused under Section 319 of CrPC was dismissed.

ANISH DAYAL, J.

"Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future"

- Justice V.R Krishna Iyer.

These words resonate deeply in the assessment by this Court of the plea of premature release after 26 years of incarceration.

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:MANISH KUMAR W.P.(CRL) 1485/2024 Page 1 of 58

Signing Date:12.11.2024

12:03:39

1. The petitioner seeks directions for setting aside the Minutes of Meeting of the Sentence Review Board ("SRB") held on 30th June 2023 rejecting the premature release of the petitioner and order dated 21 st November 2023 by which the Minutes of SRB were approved by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi; ("LG"). Petitioner, therefore, seeks directions for premature release in FIR No.48/2001, PS Rajender Nagar for offences under Sections 302/186/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'), Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 68 of the Excise Act, 2009. Additionally, the petitioner prays that this Court frames guidelines to ensure that all decisions taken by the SRB are in consonance with the Delhi Prisons Rules, 2018 ("DPR").

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant Criminal Appeals under Section 374 (2), Cr.P.C. have been filed by the appellants impeaching the judgment and order 10.11.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Shravasti in Sessions Trial No. 6/2006 (State vs. Dharmendra Kumar & another) arising out of Case Crime No. 135/1997, under Section 25 Arms Act, P.S. Ikauna, District Shravasti thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 25 Arms Act for two and a half years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in default of payment of fine five months' additional rigorous imprisonment.

3. An FIR was lodged on 25.06.1997 at Police Station- Ikauna, District- Shravasti registered as Case Crime No. 135/1997, under Section 307 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 25 Arms Act against the accused-appellant and Jitendra Kumar @ Guddu. As per the FIR, the case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on provocation of accused Jitendra Kumar @ Guddu, the appellant opened fire with country made pistol, which was recovered from the possession of the appellant, on police party. In this incident, no one sustained firearm injury.

1. Heard Ms. Aishwarya Singh, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Dhananjay Mishra, learned Counsel appearing (in Virtual Mode) for the Applicant on admission.

2. The learned Counsel is referring to document at page 42 of the Original Application which is in Hindi vernacular. The Applicant should have filed the English translation of the said document since the Hon'ble Expert Member sitting at Chennai Bench cannot be expected to read this document.

3. Even otherwise, Rule 33 of the National Green Tribunal (Practices & Procedure) Rules 2011 provides in clear and candid terms that the language of the Tribunal shall be English provided that the parties to a proceeding before the Tribunal may file documents drawn up in Hindi, if they so desire. Provided further that the Tribunal may, in its discretion permit the use of Hindi in the proceedings, and the Tribunal hearing any matter in its discretion direct English translation of pleadings and documents to be filed.

[2024:RJ-JD:45724] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 13173/2024 Sudhir Kumar S/o Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Khairpur, Police Station Bahavwala, District Fazila, Punjab.

(At Present Lodged In District Jail Hanumangarh)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.R. Godara For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 12/11/2024

[2024:RJ-JD:43970] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2596/2023 Pappu Lal @ Dinesh Kumar S/o Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Semarathi P.s., Chhoti Sadar Dist. Pratapgarh (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1157/2023 Suresh Kumar S/o. Udai Lal Gurjar, aged 35 years, R/o. Semarthali, Police Station Choti Sadari, District Pratapgarh. (Presently Lodged in District Jail, Chittorgarh)

[2024:RJ-JD:43970] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2596/2023 Pappu Lal @ Dinesh Kumar S/o Shankar Lal Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Semarathi P.s., Chhoti Sadar Dist. Pratapgarh (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1157/2023 Suresh Kumar S/o. Udai Lal Gurjar, aged 35 years, R/o. Semarthali, Police Station Choti Sadari, District Pratapgarh. (Presently Lodged in District Jail, Chittorgarh)

Order 07/11/2024 Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C has been filed against the order dated 04.08.2023 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No. 38/2019 by which the application filed by the respondent no.2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C for taking cognizance against the petitioner has been allowed and bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner for offence under Section 302/34, 447 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a written report at Police Station, Jetsar stating therein that the accused Ram kumar and Ramchandra entered into the field of complainant party and assaulted the complainant's brother [2024:RJ-JD:44922] (2 of 7) [CRLR-27/2024] Krishan lal used sharp weapon due to which his brother Krishan lal died.

Case diary is available.

2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.61/2024 registered at Police Station Dharkundi,, District Satna for offence under Sections 406, 06, 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and Section 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 R/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (Amendment) Act, 2018.

4. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that applicant has filed a Writ Petition No.23452/2024 for transfer of investigation to another Investigating Agency and in that case by order dated 22.08.2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant.

APPEARANCE:

Shri S.P. Jain - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Subodh Pradhan - Advocate for the respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{Passed on 8th the Day of November, 2024}

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the award dated 24-

03-2018 (pronounced on 02-05-2018) passed by the Labour Court No.2, Gwalior in case No.02/A/I.D. Act/2015 (Reference) whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioners and respondent were having workman employer relationship and the respondent was appointed as daily rated Nakedar on Collector rate in the establishment of petitioner No.1 Samiti. The dates and events having material bearing over the case and necessary for disposal of the case are as under:

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"7.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-

aside the impugned order dated 18-09-2024 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Narmadapuram, Division Narmadapuram, in Case No. 132/Appeal/2024-2025.

7.2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to get mutate the name of petitioner in the revenue records on the basis of registered will dated 02-05-2011. 7.3. Any other writ/direction deem fit and proper and fact and circumstance of the case.

This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the second accused in Crime No. 751/2014 of the Perumbavoor Police Station, which is registered against two accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202, and 212 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was originally arrested on 03.03.2014 and he was enlarged on bail on 14.03.2014. However, during the committal stage, the petitioner had absconded. Thereafter, the petitioner was re-arrested on 08.08.2024, and remanded to judicial custody.

2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 20.02.2014, at around 2:30 hours, the first accused committed the murder of one Mukesh. Thereafter, the first accused caused the disappearance of evidence by 2024:KER:83235 throwing his clothes into the river. The second accused, who is also a native of Bihar like the first accused, who had the knowledge that the first accused had committed the above crime, intentionally omitted to give the information regarding the commission of the offences to the police, and he harboured the first accused. Thus, the second accused has committed the offences under Sections 202 and 212 of the IPC.

Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024 The petitioner, an Inspector attached to the Parassala Police Station, at the time of filing the Writ Petition, was the sole accused in V.C.No.2/2015 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (V.A.C.B.), Thiruvananthapuram. He is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order, which accepted the refer report preferred in the Vigilance Case above-referred, but directed an enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Heard Sri.P.Nandakumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.A.Rajesh, learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance), on behalf of the respondents. Perused the records.

-----------------------------------------------------------

and

-----------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024 JUDGMENT/ORDER P.G.Ajithkumar, J.

W.P.(C)No.30142 of 2023: Travancore Devaswom Board has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent Inspector General of Registration to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 complaint dated 20.02.2023 made by the Devaswom Commissioner demanding cancellation of registration of deed No.1715/2015 with regard to the property having an extent of 32 cents in Sy.No.200/20 in Karode Village. The petitioner has also sought consequential reliefs.

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2. Per paragraph 16 of the reply dated 14-10-2024, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

1. 331 1994 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

2. 497 1994 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

3. 715 1998 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

4. 920 2004 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

and submitted an inspection report on 11.05.2024.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in paragraph no. 9 of the inspection report dated 11.05.2024, the only allegation, which has been made, is regarding enhancement of charges in respect of hajri form disproportionately and Patna High Court CWJC No.10426 of 2024 dt.12-11-2024 discontinuance of the share of Advocates and Advocate clerks in the same, resulting in resentment in the Bar, apart from some allegations being made in the said report regarding functioning of the Committee during the period 2022 to 2024, for which the petitioner is not responsible, inasmuch as his financial power had been seized vide letter dated 19.07.2023.

The applicant is in judicial custody in S.T. No.32 of 202 in connection with FIR/Case Crime No.139 of 2022, dated 21.07.2022, under Sections 302, 201, 304- B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the deceased was married to the applicant 5 years prior to lodging of the FIR. They were blessed with a daughter. The deceased was staying in her mother's house along with her daughter. The FIR records that on 20.07.2022, at about 01:00 PM, the applicant took the deceased along with her daughter with him. At 02:30 PM on that date he informed the son of the informant that the deceased would return by evening. When the deceased did not return, next morning at 07:00 AM, the applicant was telephoned by the informant, but the applicant told that the deceased had returned on the previous evening. On the same day, the dead body of the deceased was found.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION

1. Vide this judgement, this court shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case filed by the complainant namely, Samsher Singh against the accused, namely Vinod Kumar in respect of the dishonour of six cheques bearing no.415029 dated 31.05.2016 for an amount of Rs.45000/-, no. 415028 dated 25.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415027 dated 15.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415026 dated 01.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415031 dated 09.06.2016 for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- and no. 415030 dated 07.06.2016 for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- all drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi Branch (2120) Maharaja Aggrasen Shopping Complex, LAX-7, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cheques in question").

2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on 03.04.2017, ASI Usman Ali vide DD no. 3A had received an information regarding the present accident. He also received a call from Trauma Centre that the present accident had occurred. After receiving the call from Trauma Centre, ASI alongwith Ct. Mukesh reached the Trauma Centre and collected MLC no. 214228 of injured Raj Kumar. As per MLC, the doctor opined that the injured was "unfit for statement". IO met with an eye witness in the hospital, whose name was Guddu. IO recorded the statement of eye witness. Witness has stated that Raj Kumar had met with an accident when he was crossing the road on foot near Yamuna River. Eye witness, with the help of the driver of the offending vehicle, sent the injured to the hospital in the offending vehicle itself and went to the hospital by his motorcycle. On the basis of the MLC and statement of the eye witness, the offence under Section 279/337 IPC was found to have been committed.

Brief statement of reasons for the decision

1. This case has been instituted by the complainant, Mr. Pawan Kumar under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused, Mr. Ved Prakash Dhuria for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "NI Act").

Brief Facts:

2. The substance of the allegations and assertion of the complainant is that the complainant had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the accused on 09.10.2018 for four months with interest at the rate of 2% per month, given the needs of the accused and cordial relations between them. It is alleged that a loan agreement and receipt dated 09.10.2018 were also executed between the parties. It is further alleged that the accused issued two post-dated cheques, cheque No. 000029 dated 06.04.2021 and cheque No. 000030 dated 06.04.2021 both for a sum of Rs. 2,34,000/- each drawn on Bank, Of India, Pitampura Branch, Delhi in favour of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the by MEENA MEENA CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date: 2024.11.11 15:18:42 +0530 "impugned cheque"). After an expiry of four months and despite repeated demands, the accused did not repay the loan amount, then, a legal notice dated 14.03.2019 was sent to the accused to discharge his liability. Then, on instructions of the accused, the complainant presented the impugned cheques at his bank. However, both were dishonoured by the bank for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" vide memos dated 07.04.2021. Then, a demand notice dated 13.04.2021 was sent to the accused's address via Speed Post calling upon him to pay the cheque amounts. Despite the service of notice upon the accused, neither the accused paid the cheque amount nor replied to the notice. Hence, it is alleged that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

1. Sl. No. of the case 10095/2017

2. Date of institution of the case 04.08.2017

3. Name of the Complainant Sh. Narinder Gambhir S/o Kishan Lal Gambhir R/o B-29, Ground Floor, Subhadra Colony, Opposite Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110035.

4. Name of Accused, parentage Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Manoj Kumar and address R/o D-38, Lalita Block, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.

And Also at:

M/s Maha Vashno Electrical Co.

8. That attested copy of DAR is Ex. PW-1/1 already on record with the court, attested copy of Charge- sheet is Ex. PW-1/2 already on record with the court, copy of Fir is Ex. PW-1/3 already on record with the court, copy of MLC is Ex. PW-1/4 already on record with the court, copy of post mortem report is Ex. Pw-1/5 already on record with the court, copy of salary certificate is Ex. PW-1/6 already on record with the court, copy of mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle is Ex. PW-1/7 already on record with the court, copy of site plan is Ex. PW-1/8 already on record with the court, copy of Insurance Certificate of offending vehicle is Ex. PW-1/9 already on record with the court, copy fo R/C details of offending vehicle is Ex. PW-1/10 already on record with the court, copy of Driving Licence Verification report of respondent/accused is Ex. PW-1/11 already on record with the court, copy of arrest memo is Ex. PW-1/12 already on record with the court, Copies of Aadhar Cards of legal heirs are Ex. Pw-1/13 (Colly.) already on record with the court. Copy of Funeral receipt issued from Shamshan Ghat is Ex. PW-1/14. Copy of Death Certificate of my deceased father is Ex. PW-1/15.

This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 04/08/2021 passed in AS No.12 of 2020 by the Subordinate Judge, Theni, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 31/01/2020 passed in OS No.47 of 2012 by the District Munsif, Bodinayakkanur.

2.Plaint averments in brief:-

The plaintiffs are the grandsons of one Mariammal. The suit property belonged to Mariammal absolutely. In the suit property, a shop is situated at Kamarajar Bazar, which is the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiffs are the power agent of the above said Mariammal, by a power of attorney, dated 25/02/1997. Mariammal mortgaged the property to the defendant through a registered mortgage deed, dated 16/07/1982 for a consideration sum of Rs.30,000/-. The mortgage period was five years. The rate of interest was fixed at 12% per annum. On 19/07/1982, another agreement was entered into between the parties, by which it was agreed that the payment of interest for simple mortgage should be adjusted by giving possession of the mortgaged property to the defendant, which is mentioned in the schedule. It is also agreed that the defendant must enjoy the property for five years. The house tax assessment agreed to be paid by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis mortgagee. But the plaintiffs paid the taxes for the mortgaged property. On 19/07/1982, another sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid. Another mortgage deed was also executed on 19/07/1982. On 20/07/1982, another agreement was entered into. In the earlier mortgage deed, dated 19/07/1982 after the expiry of five years, the plaintiffs approached the defendant for redemption of mortgage on payment of Rs.60,000/-. But the defendant was evading and delaying. So, the suit is laid for delivery of possession after receiving the mortgage amount and for costs.