Anticipatory Bail – SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Bar under Section 18 – Prima facie caste-based abuse at public place – Informant alleged that accused No.2 abused her by uttering casteist words and all accused asked her to vacate house calling her by caste name – Incident occurred at public tap within public view – Held: Ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) prima facie attracted against accused Nos.1 and 2 – Bar under Section 18 applicable – Anticipatory bail rightly refused to them [Paras 17, 20, 22-23].

Public View – Requirement under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) – Alleged incident took place at public tap in village lane in presence of intervening witnesses – Abuse not within four walls of house – Held: Prima facie offence committed in public place within public view – Distinguishing cases where incident occurred inside house – Reliance on Karuppudayar v. State [Paras 18, 20-21].

Prima Facie Case – Scope of scrutiny at anticipatory bail stage – Court must examine FIR averments to see if offence under SC/ST Act is disclosed – No mini trial permissible – If allegations on face value attract Section 3, Section 18 creates bar – However, where no specific caste-related allegations against particular accused, protection can be granted – Reliance on Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain and Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala [Paras 10-13, 16, 21].

Vicarious Allegations – Absence of specific caste abuse – Statements did not attribute casteist abuse to accused Nos.3 and 4 – Prima facie no offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) made out against them – Held: Bar under Section 18 not attracted qua accused Nos.3 and 4 – Entitled to anticipatory bail [Para 21-23].

Counter-Complaint – Delay in FIR – Defence of 13 days delay and earlier N.C. report lodged by accused No.1 – At stage of Section 14-A appeal, FIR contents decisive for examining prima facie case – Such defence not sufficient to dislodge statutory bar where ingredients disclosed [Paras 5-6, 16-17].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Rejection of anticipatory bail upheld for appellant Nos.1 and 2 – They directed to surrender within two weeks – Impugned order quashed to extent of appellant Nos.3 and 4 – Interim anticipatory bail granted earlier to appellant Nos.3 and 4 confirmed during pendency of trial – Appeal disposed of [Paras 22-24].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 – Section 2 – Quashing of Proceedings – National Flag hoisted upside down on Independence Day – Petitioner, a Second Division Assistant in Gram Panchayat, was in charge of flag hoisting ceremony – Allegation that due to negligence, Flag was unfurled in reverse position – Charge sheet materials disclose that act was inadvertent and not intentional – Held: Mere negligent or mistaken hoisting of National Flag without intention to insult does not attract Section 2 of the Act – Continuation of prosecution amounts to abuse of process of Court – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13].

Criminal Procedure – Inherent Powers – Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope of interference at pre-trial stage – Court can quash proceedings where allegations and charge sheet materials do not disclose essential ingredients of offence – In absence of intentional insult or offering indignity to National Flag, prosecution under Section 2 of the Act not sustainable – Inherent powers invoked to secure ends of justice and prevent abuse of process [Paras 6, 10, 11].

National Honour – Requirement of Mens Rea – Complaint and witness statements reveal that Flag was hoisted upside down due to oversight and negligence – No material to show deliberate or malicious intention – Courts have consistently held that unintentional lapses relating to National Flag do not constitute offence under Section 2 – Absence of mens rea fatal to prosecution [Paras 8, 9, 10].

Decision: Petition allowed – Proceedings in C.C. No.1307/2022 arising out of Crime No.81/2021 for offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 quashed insofar as petitioner/Accused No.1 is concerned.

Civil Law – Amendment of Plaint – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Scope and Principles – Court reiterated that amendments necessary for determining real controversy should ordinarily be allowed – Hyper-technical approach to be avoided – Merits of amendment to be tested at trial – Delay alone not a ground to reject amendment – Limitation plea can be framed as issue after allowing amendment [Paras 7-10, 18-19].

Amendment Application Signed by Power of Attorney Holder – Validity – Objection that power of attorney not formally taken on record rejected – Power of attorney holder is recognised agent under Order III CPC – Plaintiff never disputed authority – Act of attorney is act of principal – Held: Application not invalid merely because POA application under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC pending [Paras 11-15].

Limitation – Entry 58 Limitation Act – Amendment Allegedly Time-Barred – Plea of limitation is mixed question of law and fact – Where dispute exists as to applicability of limitation provision, amendment cannot be rejected at threshold – Issue of limitation can be framed and decided at trial – Amendment not to be refused solely on arguable limitation ground [Paras 16-19].

Order II Rule 2 CPC – Bar of Subsequent Suit – Applicability to Amendment – Order II Rule 2 operates as bar to subsequent suit and not to amendment of pleadings in pending suit – Objection that amendment seeks to incorporate reliefs from separate suit rejected – Held: Bar under Order II Rule 2 does not eclipse power under Order VI Rule 17 CPC [Para 20].

Withdrawal of Admissions – Allegation that amendment retracts earlier pleadings – Court held consequential amendment open to defendants – No manifest injustice demonstrated – Not ground to invoke supervisory jurisdiction [Para 21].

Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Supervisory jurisdiction limited – No patent perversity or gross failure of justice found in trial Court’s order allowing amendment – High Court will not interfere merely because another view is possible [Para 23].

Decision: Miscellaneous Petitions dismissed – Order allowing amendment of plaint upheld – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Criminal Law - Discharge – Disproportionate Assets – Scope under Section 239 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner challenged rejection of discharge application in vigilance case alleging accumulation of assets disproportionate to known sources of income during check period 01.05.1982 to 29.12.1995 – Alleged D.A. enhanced from Rs.8,72,624/- in FIR to Rs.14,38,435/- in charge-sheet – Held: At stage of discharge, Court is to see whether materials disclose a strong prima facie case and not to conduct meticulous evaluation or mini trial – Disputed questions relating to valuation, income sources and ownership to be adjudicated at trial [Paras 13–14, 18].

Limited Remand – Scope and Compliance – Earlier order dated 07.02.2024 set aside rejection of discharge and remitted matter for fresh consideration of specific documents forming part of charge-sheet – Remand not for re-appreciation of entire evidence – Petitioner attempted to re-argue entire case and sought detailed adjudication of each item of assets – Held: Trial Court not required to record findings on each document or conduct elaborate scrutiny at discharge stage – No non-compliance with remand directions found [Paras 15–17].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 13(1)(e) – Evaluation at Pre-Charge Stage – Issues regarding inclusion of wife’s assets, ancestral agricultural income, valuation of properties and computation methodology raised by accused – Held: Acceptability of explanations, correctness of computation and attribution of assets are matters for trial – Strong suspicion based on prosecution material sufficient for framing charge – Inherent jurisdiction not to be invoked to stifle prosecution at threshold [Paras 17–19].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS – Interference with Order Rejecting Discharge – Held: In absence of patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error, High Court ought not to interfere – Impugned order disclosed application of mind and prima facie satisfaction regarding ingredients of offence – Petition dismissed [Paras 19–21].

Expeditious Trial – Long Pendency – FIR registered on 08.01.1996 – Charge-sheet filed on 31.03.2011 – Trial pending for over 15 years – Held: Trial Court directed to conclude trial preferably within six months [Para 20].

Decision: CRLMC dismissed – Order dated 20.05.2024 rejecting discharge upheld – Trial Court directed to conclude trial expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Arbitration – Termination of Mandate vs Termination of Proceedings – Withdrawal of Sole Arbitrator due to ill-health – Mandate terminated under Section 14 – No final award or order under Section 32 – Held, mere termination of mandate does not result in termination of arbitral proceedings – Reference continues and vacancy in tribunal must be filled under Section 15(2) – Arbitration agreement subsists [Paras 21–24, 26].

Substitution of Arbitrator – Section 15(2) – Same Rules Applicable – Court held that expression “shall be appointed according to the rules applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced” means rigours of Section 11, including limitation, apply equally to appointment of substitute arbitrator – Application under Section 11 maintainable upon failure of agreed procedure through BCCI [Paras 25, 31, 34].

Limitation – Section 11(6) Petition – Applicability of Article 137 – Supreme Court in M/s Arif Azim Co. Ltd. held Article 137 (three years) applies to Section 11(6) petitions – Right to apply accrues upon failure of other party/institution after invocation – Limitation applies equally to substitute arbitrator appointment – Technical plea that no limitation applies rejected [Paras 28–33].

Exclusion and Condonation – COVID Extension – Section 14 and Section 5 Limitation Act – Period excluded pursuant to Supreme Court’s suo motu orders in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation – Further exclusion granted for bona fide prosecution of petitions under Sections 29A, 14 and 15 – Residual delay of 76 and 91 days – Held, delay condonable under Section 5 – Formal application not mandatory – Substantial justice requires continuation of arbitral reference [Paras 35–38].

Institutional Arbitration – Failure of Agreed Procedure – Applicants approached BCCI twice for substitution – No appointment made – Court observed that arbitration agreement does not come to an end due to expiry or withdrawal of arbitrator – In peculiar facts, technical objections cannot defeat adjudication of disputes on merits [Paras 25–27, 34].

Order:

(i) Delay in filing the Applications condoned –

(ii) Mr. Justice R. Y. Ganoo (Former Judge, Bombay High Court) appointed as substitute Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from Dealership Agreements dated 26 December 2012 and 9 July 2013 –

(iii) Directions issued regarding disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1), appearance before Arbitrator, fees as per Bombay High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2018 –

(iv) All rights and contentions kept open – Applications allowed and disposed of [Para 40].

Civil Law - Ex Parte Decree – Preliminary Decree – Validity – Earlier preliminary decree passed in cryptic manner without discussion of issues or proof of documents – Defendant had filed written statement denying execution of guarantee and mortgage – Held: Ex parte decree not automatic – Plaintiff must still prove case in accordance with law – Preliminary decree passed without proper adjudication has no legal sanctity [Paras 32-40].

Burden of Proof – Even in Ex Parte Proceedings – Absence of defendant does not relieve plaintiff from proving execution of documents and entitlement to relief – Court must scrutinize pleadings, admissibility and proof of documents – Held: Mere marking of documents insufficient to establish execution [Paras 33-36, 39].

Guarantee Deed – Proof of Execution – Alleged Guarantee Deed (Ex.A5) denied by defendants – Attesting witnesses not examined – Execution not proved in manner known to law – Held: Plaintiff failed to discharge burden – No personal liability can be fastened on defendants [Paras 15, 41].

Equitable Mortgage – Deposit of Title Deeds – Alleged mortgage by deposit of title deeds not proved – Document not registered and foundational facts not established – Intention to create security not demonstrated – Held: Creation of equitable mortgage not proved [Paras 15, 40-41].

Directors’ Liability – Independent Corporate Entity – Transactions were between plaintiff and Ankal Finance Ltd. – Mere status as Director does not create personal liability in absence of proved guarantee – Held: Personal decree cannot be granted against 2nd respondent [Paras 22, 41].

Legal Representatives – Non-Impleadment – 1st defendant died leaving other legal heirs – Though application to implead allowed, legal representatives not brought on record – Estate cannot be said to be represented solely by 2nd respondent – Held: Suit defective for non-joinder of necessary parties [Paras 42-44].

Finality of Decree – Preliminary decree binds parties only if validly passed – Where decree passed without due compliance of procedural and evidentiary requirements, plaintiff cannot rely upon its supposed finality – Held: Reliance on principle in Venkata Reddy v. Pethi Reddy inapplicable [Paras 28-31, 40].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Judgment and decree dated 03.12.2016 in O.S.No.486 of 2004 confirming dismissal of suit upheld [Para 45].

Civil Law - Land Allotment – Cancellation of Lease – Locus Standi – Petition under Section 198(4) U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act – Petitioner sought cancellation of agricultural lease granted to private respondents on ground that land was not vacant and he was in possession – Admittedly no allotment or legal right ever granted in favour of petitioner – Held, proceedings under Section 198(4) can be initiated suo motu or by a “person aggrieved” – Petitioner failed to establish any legal right or injury – Not an aggrieved person – Writ not maintainable – Dismissed [Paras 7, 10–12, 17–18].

Person Aggrieved – Meaning and Scope – Legal Grievance – Court reiterated that a “person aggrieved” must have suffered a legal grievance or injury affecting his enforceable right – Mere possession without lawful allotment does not confer legal right – Psychological or sentimental grievance insufficient – Existence of enforceable right is condition precedent to invoke Article 226 jurisdiction [Paras 12–16].

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Maintainability – Stranger to Proceedings – Relief under Article 226 based on existence of legal right – Stranger cannot maintain writ of certiorari or mandamus in absence of exceptional circumstances – No public interest or exceptional ground shown – Petition liable to be dismissed on ground of lack of locus standi [Paras 13–15, 17].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner held not to be an “aggrieved person” under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act – No order as to costs.

Service Law - Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 – Higher Pension Option – Claim for Refixation on Actual Salary – Petitioner retired APSRTC employee sought direction for consideration of representation dated 02.12.2017 for enhancement of pension on actual salary exceeding ceiling limit of Rs.5,000/-/Rs.6,500/- – Alleged illegal restriction of employer’s contribution to ceiling amount despite contribution on actual salary – Relied on R.C. Gupta and subsequent Supreme Court judgment in Sunil Kumar B. – Held: In view of authoritative pronouncement of Apex Court in Sunil Kumar B. laying down guidelines in Para 44 regarding exercise of option and entitlement under pre and post amendment provisions of Para 11(3) and 11(4) – Writ petition disposed of directing adherence to said directions – No independent adjudication required [Paras 13–17].

Provident Fund Contribution – Exercise of Option under Para 26(6) and Para 11(3) – Whether exercise of option under Provident Fund Scheme bars option under Pension Scheme – Referred to R.C. Gupta – Held: Exercise of option under Para 26(6) is precursor and does not estop employee from seeking benefit under Para 11(3) when contribution was made on actual salary – Beneficial scheme not to be defeated by technical cut-off dates [Para 13].

2014 Amendment to Pension Scheme – Validity and Applicability – Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar B. upheld validity of Notification dated 22.08.2014 with specific directions regarding categories of employees including those retired prior to 01.09.2014 and those who exercised option – High Court followed binding directions under Article 142 and Para 44 of said judgment – Matter disposed in terms of Apex Court guidelines [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of in terms of directions contained in Para 44 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in The Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dismissal under Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Accused Never Appeared – Magistrate dismissed complaints on 29.09.2014 and recorded acquittal despite accused not appearing from 2012 onwards – Continuous issuance of summons and warrants – Held: Section 256 Cr.P.C. contemplates acquittal when case is fixed for appearance/hearing and accused is before Court – Acquittal of an accused who never faced trial is patently illegal and contrary to scheme of summons trial [Paras 52-54].

Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Object – Provision intended to protect accused from harassment when complainant defaults despite accused’s presence – Magistrate must consider whether complainant’s personal attendance was essential and whether adjournment justified – In present case, matter was not at hearing stage and accused never appeared – Invocation of Section 256 improper – Order dated 29.09.2014 illegal [Paras 46-49, 54].

Revision vs Appeal – Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. vis-à-vis Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. – Contention that remedy lay in appeal against acquittal rejected – Held: Where so-called acquittal is passed without trial and without evidence at post-cognizance stage, such order is grossly erroneous and amenable to revisional correction – Revisional court competent to set aside patently illegal order – No bar under Section 401(4) attracted in peculiar facts [Paras 56-57].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Sessions Court empowered to examine correctness, legality and propriety of order – Revisional interference justified where Magistrate exercised discretion arbitrarily and contrary to statutory scheme – Restoration of complaint by revisional court upheld [Paras 56-57].

Summons Trial – Scheme under Sections 251–255 Cr.P.C. – Presence of accused is foundational for framing substance of accusation and proceeding with evidence – Without accused’s appearance, trial cannot commence – Consequently, acquittal under Section 256 without accused facing trial unsustainable [Paras 50-53].

Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. – Dismissal for Non-payment of Process Fee – Record showed complainant continuously took steps for issuance of summons and warrants – Complaints not dismissed for default in process fee – Hence Section 204(4) not attracted [Paras 37-41].

Summoning Order – Challenge – Argument that cheque issued by company and company not impleaded – Complaint disclosed personal transaction and issuance of cheques by accused – No material to show cheques drawn on company account – Section 141 NI Act not attracted – Summoning order dated 25.02.2012 valid [Paras 31-32, 62].

Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. – Opportunity of Hearing – Allegation that accused not heard in revision – Record and conduct showed continuous evasion of process – No prejudice demonstrated warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 31, 56].

Expeditious Trial – Section 138 NI Act – Complaints pending since 2012 – Accused repeatedly avoided summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants – In light of Supreme Court directions in In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act, trial court directed to expedite proceedings [Para 63].

Decision: All applications filed by accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Cumulative cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed payable to complainant within stipulated time – Application filed by complainant allowed – Trial Court directed to expedite disposal of all connected complaints in accordance with law and Supreme Court guidelines [Para 63].