Family Law – Divorce – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act – Husband and wife cohabited for only 15 days – Marriage not consummated – Wife initiated criminal proceedings against husband and family alleging dowry demands – Held: Marriage has irretrievably broken down with no chance of reconciliation – Divorce granted to the husband. [Paras 2, 10-14]

Family Law – Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Section 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act – Physical violence not necessary for cruelty – Continuous mental agony and harassment constitute cruelty – Institution of false criminal proceedings amounts to mental cruelty – Divorce justified based on wife's conduct causing mental torture to husband. [Paras 3, 5-11]

Decision – Divorce Granted – Appeals allowed – Judgment of Family Court set aside – Husband's petition for divorce granted, wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights dismissed – Marriage dissolved due to cruelty and non-consummation. [Paras 12-14]

Criminal Law – Withdrawal of Surety – Sections 148, 149, 212, 308, 323, 325, 506 IPC – Sections 482 and 444 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner's application for withdrawal of surety bond furnished in favor of the accused Pankaj – Lower court's failure to consider Section 444 Cr.P.C. provisions – Held: Application for withdrawal of surety bond must be reconsidered by the lower court in light of Section 444 Cr.P.C. – Lower court's order set aside with directions to decide the application afresh. [Paras 1-12]

Discharge of Sureties – Legal Requirements – Section 444 Cr.P.C. allows sureties to apply for discharge of bond – Magistrate required to issue a warrant for arrest and direct the discharge of bond upon the appearance of the accused – Requirement for the accused to find new sureties or face commitment to jail if unable to do so – Importance of following statutory procedures for fairness and due process. [Paras 6-8]

Decision – Reconsideration of Application – Petition allowed, directing lower court to reconsider the application for withdrawal of surety bond as per Section 444 Cr.P.C. – Fresh decision to be made within one month, ensuring proper notice and hearing of all concerned parties. [Paras 9-12]

Criminal Law – Regular Bail – Section 306 IPC – Abetment to Suicide – Petitioner's alleged involvement in abetment based on a suicide note – Suicide note lacks specific instances implicating petitioner – No prior complaints by deceased or complainant against petitioner – Held: Grant of regular bail justified considering lack of direct evidence and prolonged custody – Petitioner entitled to bail subject to conditions to ensure presence at trial and prevent witness tampering. [Paras 1-13]

Mens Rea and Active Act – Analysis – In order to convict under Section 306 IPC, clear mens rea and an active or direct act leading to suicide are required – Mere harassment insufficient without a positive act to instigate or aid in suicide – References to Supreme Court rulings in Gangula Mohan Reddy and other cases supporting the need for clear instigation or aid for abetment. [Paras 5-9]

Decision – Grant of Regular Bail – Petition allowed, directing release of petitioner on bail with conditions to ensure non-tampering with evidence, regular court attendance, and prevention of further offenses – Prosecution's liberty to seek cancellation of bail upon any breach of conditions. [Paras 10-13]

Criminal Law – Regular Bail – NDPS Act – Petitioner's involvement in conspiracy alleged under Sections 20 and 29 NDPS Act – No recovery directly from petitioner – Petitioner not apprehended at scene, nor owner of implicated vehicle – Held: Grant of regular bail justified considering prolonged custody and arguable points on merits – Petitioner entitled to bail subject to conditions to ensure presence at trial and prevent tampering with evidence. [Paras 1-22]

Merits of the Case – Non-compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act – Defense argument on secret information not being recorded in writing and sent to senior officers – Reference to Rajender Singh's case highlighting similar non-compliance – Argument considered substantial for trial – No final opinion on merits to avoid prejudice. [Paras 11-13]

Decision – Grant of Regular Bail – Petition allowed, directing release of petitioner on bail with conditions to ensure non-tampering with evidence, regular court attendance, and prevention of further offenses – Prosecution's liberty to seek cancellation of bail upon any breach of conditions. [Paras 21-24]

Employment Law – Relationship between employer and employee – Minimum Wages Act, Industrial Disputes Act – Canteen Waiter as Bank Employee – Retrenchment of canteen waiter deemed illegal due to non-adherence to procedural requirements under Industrial Disputes Act, Section 25(F), (G), and (H) – Appeals dismissed – Orders of reinstatement with back wages upheld – LPA No.1135 of 2019 and LPA No.1156 of 2019 dismissed by High Court [Paras 1-41].

Employer-Employee Relationship – Definition under the Industrial Disputes Act and Minimum Wages Act – Respondent's status as workman confirmed – Engaged by bank’s Chief Manager, paid from bank subsidy, and serving during banking hours – Reinstatement ordered due to lack of evidence to justify termination – Termination held arbitrary and illegal [Paras 17, 19, 20, 25, 33, 34, 36].

Judicial Findings – Tribunal’s award upheld by Single Judge and Division Bench – Relationship of employer and employee confirmed by previous litigation – Estoppel and res judicata principles applied – Appeals dismissed on grounds of lack of evidence for termination procedure compliance and arbitrary actions by the bank [Paras 3, 19, 26, 31, 32, 38].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Held – Appeals dismissed – The retrenchment of workmen was illegal and arbitrary due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act – Reinstatement with back wages ordered by Tribunal and upheld by High Court, reaffirming the employee status of canteen waiters [Para 39].

Criminal Law – DNA Sampling – Section 53-A CrPC – Petition challenging the trial court's order for the petitioner to provide a blood sample for DNA analysis was dismissed. The court upheld the order, referencing Section 53-A CrPC, which mandates DNA testing in rape cases to establish the connection of the accused with the crime. The petitioner’s claim of self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution was rejected based on precedent. Held that the prosecution must conduct DNA profiling to connect the accused with the crime, emphasizing that such testing is crucial when there is likely material to link the accused with the offense​​.

Testimony of Witnesses – Irrelevance at Pre-trial Stage – The petitioner’s argument that the minor victim and other witnesses turned hostile was deemed irrelevant at this stage. The court emphasized that the evidentiary value of such testimonies would be assessed during the final adjudication of the case. Held that the trial court's decision to order DNA sampling was neither illegal nor perverse​​.

Decision:

Petition Dismissed – The court dismissed the petition, supporting the trial court’s directive for DNA testing. It confirmed that such measures do not violate the accused’s fundamental rights and are essential for the prosecution to establish the case against the accused​​.

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Deposit of Compensation – Petition against orders directing deposit of 20% of compensation awarded by the trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that, as per the judgment in Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi, the word "may" in Section 148 of the Act should generally be construed as "shall". Therefore, the appellate court is required to direct the appellant to deposit at least 20% of the amount as compensation. The petition was allowed for the company but dismissed for the directors, maintaining their obligation to deposit the amount​​.

Role of Corporate Debtor in Cheque Dishonour – Analysis – Held that proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the N.I. Act must continue against the Managing Director and Director of the company despite the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. The court emphasized that the statutory powers of the appellate court under Section 148 of the N.I. Act cannot be negated by the moratorium provision. The petition was allowed with respect to the company but not the individual directors, reinforcing the legal stance against abuse of the moratorium provision to evade financial liabilities​​.

Decision – Partial Allowance of Petition – The order directing the company to deposit 20% of the compensation was set aside, while the direction to the directors was upheld. This differentiated approach underscores the court's commitment to ensuring accountability without infringing on statutory protections provided under the IBC​​.

Criminal Law – Cheating – Section 420 IPC – The court, referring to the principle laid down in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal (AIR 2010 SC 1097), held that it has the power to set aside a judgment of conviction on the basis of a valid compromise. Held that the judgment of conviction and sentence against the petitioner was set aside on the basis of a genuine and valid compromise between the parties. [Para 23]

Condonation of Delay – Section 5 Limitation Act – The application for condonation of delay of 1541 days in filing the criminal revision was allowed due to the absence of objections from the opposite side and the presence of a valid compromise. [Paras 1-5]

Compromise Validity – Section 482 CrPC – The court emphasized that the compromise was genuine, entered into without coercion, and served to bring peace between the parties. The decision in Ramgopal &Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012) was referenced to justify the quashing of proceedings post-conviction based on a compromise. [Paras 19-25]

Decision:

Setting Aside Conviction and Sentence – The criminal revision was allowed, and the judgments of conviction and sentence dated 06.04.2015 and 20.07.2017 were set aside. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges framed against him based on the valid and genuine compromise. [Para 25]

Criminal Law – Bail – Predicate Offence – Money Laundering – High Court's Consideration of Bail under PMLA – Petitioner sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – High Court referred to Nikesh Tara Chand Shah case, ruling that the principle is of granting rather than denying bail. No evidence was provided by the prosecution indicating that the petitioner, if granted bail, would abscond or tamper with evidence – Held that denial of bail would unjustly restrict personal liberty – Bail granted to petitioner subject to conditions. [Paras 1-35]

Bail Conditions – Applicability and Justification – Analysis – Held – Granting bail underlined by the absence of evidence suggesting the petitioner would evade trial or interfere with the evidence. Referenced conditions imposed to ensure the petitioner's compliance and presence during trial. [Para 33]

Decision – Granting of Bail – Judicial Reasoning – High Court grants bail to petitioner based on the rule favoring bail and lack of prosecution evidence against him at this stage. The order does not impact the merits of the main trial or restrict the prosecution from appropriate legal recourse. [Paras 30-34]