Anticipatory Bail – Matrimonial Offences – Serious Allegations of Sexual and Physical Cruelty – Application under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in FIR alleging dowry harassment, physical assault, sexual abuse including unnatural sex and attempted burning with cigarettes – Allegations spanning over two years of matrimonial relationship – Held: Case not a simple matrimonial dispute but involves grave and serious allegations warranting custodial interrogation [Paras 18–20].

Anticipatory Bail – Delay in FIR – Explanation Acceptable in Sexual Offences – FIR lodged after considerable delay – Explanation that complainant was traumatised, socially stigmatized and earlier attempts to lodge FIR were refused by police – Held: Delay in lodging FIR in cases involving sexual abuse and matrimonial cruelty is not fatal and does not discredit the prosecution case at the bail stage [Paras 12–13].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Recovery of Electronic and Physical Evidence – Allegations that accused possessed intimate photographs, hard disks, jewellery (streedhan), personal documents and electronic devices belonging to complainant – Held: Custodial interrogation necessary to recover crucial evidence, uncover full extent of offence and prevent tampering or misuse of sensitive material [Paras 14, 27–30].

Anticipatory Bail – WhatsApp Chats and Electronic Evidence – Prima Facie Assessment – WhatsApp communications containing abusive language, threats and intimidation relied upon by prosecution – Report under Section 65-B Evidence Act collected during investigation certifying genuineness of electronic evidence – Held: At anticipatory bail stage, Court can prima facie look into electronic material to assess gravity and necessity of custodial interrogation without conducting a mini-trial [Paras 15, 18].

Anticipatory Bail – Marital Consent – Bodily Autonomy of Spouse – Court observed that marriage does not imply automatic or perpetual sexual consent – Non-consensual and unnatural sexual acts within marriage cause physical and mental trauma and constitute grave offences – Held: Allegations of sexual assault within marriage cannot be trivialized at the stage of anticipatory bail [Paras 19–20].

Anticipatory Bail – Balance Between Personal Liberty and Societal Interest – While personal liberty is important, Court must consider seriousness of offence, societal impact, likelihood of repetition and need for fair investigation – No special or compelling circumstances shown to justify pre-arrest protection – Held: Grant of anticipatory bail at initial stage likely to hamper investigation [Paras 21–29].

Decision – Application rejected – Anticipatory bail declined – Trial court order upheld – Clarified that observations confined to bail stage and shall not prejudice regular bail or trial on merits [Paras 30–31].

Criminal Law – Discharge – Scope at Preliminary Stage – Accused seeking discharge contending that he was neither Director nor shareholder of accused company – Magistrate relied on Registrar of Companies records showing petitioner as Director – At discharge stage, court required to see prima facie material and not conduct a roving enquiry – Held: Existence of documentary material showing petitioner as Director sufficient to proceed with trial [Paras 5–6].

Company Offences – Director’s Liability – Economic Offences – Collection of deposits without licence – CBCID final report alleging offences under IPC, RBI Act and Kerala Chitties Act – Directors responsible for management as per Articles of Association – Held: When records show accused as Director during relevant period, criminal liability cannot be ruled out at threshold [Paras 2, 5].

Effect of Writ Proceedings – Direction to Registrar of Companies – Enquiry into Directorship – Mere direction by High Court to conduct enquiry and rectify records, if mistake found – No material produced to show that enquiry concluded in favour of accused – Held: Pendency or existence of such direction does not automatically entitle accused to discharge [Para 6].

Criminal Revision – Interference with Order Refusing Discharge – Revisional court will not interfere unless order suffers from illegality or perversity – Magistrate’s order based on records and relevant considerations – Held: No ground made out for interference under revisional jurisdiction [Paras 5–6].

Liberty Reserved – Quashing Proceedings – Accused permitted to approach High Court for quashing if subsequent enquiry by Registrar of Companies establishes that his name was wrongly shown as Director during period of offence [Final Para].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Order refusing discharge upheld – Liberty reserved to seek quashment on proof of favourable outcome of Registrar of Companies enquiry.

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Husband alleged wife was quarrelsome, threatened to poison his blind parents, took his ATM card and money, and deserted him – Evidence led by husband found to be uncorroborated and lacking documentary support – In contrast, wife produced uncontroverted oral and documentary evidence including cybercrime and police complaints against the husband for uploading semi-nude images, digital abuse, and dowry-related harassment – Held: Cruelty not established by husband – Instead, cruelty by husband proved based on wife’s credible evidence [Paras 20, 40-44]

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Allegation by husband that wife deserted him since 19.05.2020 – Wife demonstrated she left due to cruelty, threats, and unsafe environment – Evidence showed she was compelled to leave due to abuse – Held: No voluntary or unjustified desertion by wife – Desertion not proved – Section 23(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act applied – Husband cannot take benefit of his own wrongdoing [Paras 33-37, 45-49]

Family Law – Perversity of Judgment – Husband claimed judgment of Family Court was perverse – High Court held trial court considered evidence thoroughly including respondent's uncontroverted witnesses and criminal proceedings substantiating her case – Held: No perversity or legal error – Family Court’s findings well-supported – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-22, 51-52]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Divorce denied – Judgment of Family Court upheld – No proof of cruelty or desertion by wife – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of

Commercial Law – Rejection of Plaint – Compliance with Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act – Suit filed on 31st July 2021, registered on 18th December 2021 – High Court had declared Section 12-A mandatory on 1st October 2021 in Deepak Raheja – Held: Since suit was filed prior to that date, plaint cannot be rejected for non-compliance with Section 12-A – Filing of suit is relevant date for determining compliance, not registration [Paras 8, 22(a)-(b), 31].

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – No Cause of Action – Plaint alleges plaintiffs were beneficiaries under Master Restructuring Agreement (MRA) and Trust and Retention Account (TRA) agreements – Defendant no. 1 (SBI) was account bank and allegedly withheld funds due to plaintiffs – Suit also based on representations made in Joint Lenders Forum meetings – Held: Cause of action adequately pleaded; whether it is illusory or defective is a matter for trial – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) not warranted [Paras 23–29].

Limitation – Recovery Suit – Article 113 of Limitation Act – Plaintiffs claim right to sue accrued only upon discovery of facts on 21st May 2019 via NCLT proceedings – Suit filed on 31st July 2021 – Held: Cause of action within limitation as pleaded; limitation involves mixed question of fact and law to be determined at trial stage [Paras 30, 22(k), 29].

Mediation – Validity of Private Mediation – Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act read with 2018 Rules – Pre-litigation mediation attempted privately and failed – Held: Although private mediation does not fulfil mandatory requirement under Section 12-A, since suit was filed before Section 12-A was declared mandatory, rejection not warranted on this ground [Paras 5(a)-(b), 22(c), 31].

Practice and Procedure – Abuse of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Court discourages frivolous applications for rejection of plaint that delay commercial suits – Reiterates power to reject plaint must be used sparingly and only when clear grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are satisfied [Para 32].

Decision: Application rejected – None of the grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC satisfied – Suit to proceed to trial [Para 33].

Specific Relief – Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiffs seeking specific performance of agreement to sell ancestral land – Agreement silent on key requirement of Nazrana amount of ₹1.5 lakhs to obtain Collector’s permission for sale to non-agriculturists – Plaintiffs failed to assist in discharging encumbrances or paying dues to enable sale deed – Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness as per Section 13(1)(c) of Specific Relief Act – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 6.2, 10–13].

Contract Law – Agreement to Sell – Frustration – Agreement for sale of ancestral land executed when defendant in financial distress – Land jointly held and encumbered with loans exceeding ₹4 lakhs – Defendant required to obtain subdivision and Collector’s permission, but consideration received was grossly inadequate to meet obligations – Held: Agreement frustrated due to impossibility of performance – Plaintiffs not entitled to decree [Paras 9, 12–13].

Land Laws – Agricultural Land – Permission for Sale to Non-Agriculturist – Agreement did not mention requirement of Collector's permission or Nazrana payment – Plaintiff being non-agriculturist could not complete purchase without such permission – Held: Absence of contractual clause addressing this statutory requirement rendered performance legally impossible [Paras 10–11, 14].

Evidence Act – Concurrent Findings – Credibility of Defendant’s Evidence – Original defendant died before trial – Legal heir (Defendant 1C) deposed with supporting bank documents – Evidence corroborated non-performance and financial incapacity – Trial Court’s reliance upheld – Appellate interference unwarranted [Paras 11–13].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Both courts below correctly appreciated evidence and applied settled law – Second appeal dismissed in absence of any perversity or legal error [Paras 15–16].

Restitution – Return of Deposit – ₹1.51 lakh deposited by plaintiffs pursuant to trial court order – No objection from defendants – Held: Amount with accrued interest to be returned within two weeks based on server copy of judgment [Paras 17–18].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Decree of Trial Court and Appellate Court upheld – Plaintiffs not entitled to specific performance – Deposited amount of ₹1.51 lakhs to be refunded with interest.

Money Laundering – Bail – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 – Delay in Trial – Applicant in custody for over two years in connection with ECIR/SHSZO/04/2019 under Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA – Charges not yet framed – 71 witnesses and over 31,000 pages of documentary evidence cited by ED – Trial of predicate offences before CBI Court not commenced – Held: Continued custody without foreseeable conclusion of trial amounts to violation of Article 21 – Right to speedy trial is paramount and overrides statutory restrictions under Section 45 of PMLA where prolonged incarceration is evident [Paras 26, 32-34, 44, 48].

PMLA – Twin Conditions under Section 45 – Constitutional Courts’ Powers – Citing judgments in V. Senthil Balaji, Manish Sisodia, and K.A. Najeeb, Court held that where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, constitutional courts may relax twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA – Held: In present case, both conditions deemed satisfied – Applicant not found guilty at this stage and not likely to commit offence on bail [Paras 43-45].

Bail Jurisprudence – Bail is Rule, Jail is Exception – Citing Manish Sisodia v. ED, Bachhu Yadav v. ED, and Ramkripal Meena v. ED, Court reiterated that statutory bail restrictions must yield to constitutional protections where trial is inordinate and incarceration disproportionate – Bail not to be withheld as punishment when trial unlikely to conclude soon [Paras 35, 39, 40, 42].

Trial Delay – No Fault of Applicant – Though ED alleged delay was caused by accused, Court found no fault attributable to applicant – Adjournments sought by co-accused not to prejudice applicant’s right to bail – Bail refusal cannot be justified solely on pendency caused by others [Paras 32-33].

Public Servant Accused – Shell Entities and Money Trail – Allegations that applicant, as Dealing Assistant in Department of Higher Education, verified fraudulent scholarship claims and laundered proceeds through entities formed with family members – ED traced proceeds of crime to land purchases and business investments – However, Court held that these are to be adjudicated at trial – Bail not to be denied solely due to role as government servant [Paras 21.3–21.15, 46].

Investigation Status – No Tampering Risk – ED expressed concerns about tampering and influence – Court held concerns can be addressed by imposing strict bail conditions – Evidence largely documentary and already seized – No likelihood of tampering [Paras 21.17, 57].

Decision: Bail granted – Applicant ordered to be released on furnishing personal bond of ₹2,00,000 with two sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure trial attendance and prevent tampering – ED granted liberty to seek cancellation upon violation of terms.

Service Law – Seniority – Direct Recruitment – BSF – Petitioners were declared unfit in initial medical examination and appointed after being found fit in Review Medical Examination – Claimed seniority with batchmates who joined earlier pursuant to the same selection – Held: Rule 8(2) of the 2002 Rules governs seniority and mandates it to be based on date of continuous regular appointment – Rule 8(3) regarding merit applies only when date of appointment is same – Delay, even if not attributable to petitioners, does not override the statutory mandate – Petitioners cannot claim seniority along with earlier appointees [Paras 10-14, 26-27].

Statutory Interpretation – Rule 8 of BSF Recruitment Rules, 2002 – Rule 8(2) held to apply to all appointments including direct recruitment – Interpretation in Ram Pal Deswal limiting Rule 8(2) to promotions found erroneous – Proviso cannot restrict scope of main provision – Rule 8(3) is subordinate to Rule 8(2) – Seniority must follow date of regular appointment, not merit alone [Paras 18.7-18.13, 21.1-21.6].

Conflicting Precedents – Full Bench resolves conflict – Division Bench ruling in Ram Pal Deswal overruled – Shoorvir Singh Negi approved as correct exposition of law – Other decisions like Naveen Kumar Jha, Avinash Singh, Naresh Kumar and M.V. Sheshagiri held distinguishable or not binding due to absence of Rule-based analysis – Dinesh Kumar also distinguished as dealing with different issue [Paras 7, 20-25].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to seniority from date of selection process – Seniority to be reckoned from date of actual appointment – No costs [Paras 26-29].

Civil Writ - Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Revision Dismissed for Non-Appearance – Impugned order passed by Additional Commissioner dismissing OSS Case without hearing the petitioner – Petitioner contended absence of notice and denial of opportunity – Held: Order passed without hearing violates principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained [Paras 3-4].

Judicial Duty – Disposal on Merits – Avoidance of Multiplicity of Proceedings – Court reiterated that a matter should ordinarily be decided on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties – Emphasised that courts should not permit technicalities to defeat substantial justice [Paras 4-5].

Substantial Justice – Technicalities – Preference – When technical considerations are pitted against substantial justice, the latter must prevail – Dismissal of revision without hearing petitioner held contrary to settled principles of law [Para 5].

Remand – Fresh Adjudication – Time-bound Disposal – Impugned order dated 21.06.2024 quashed – OSS Case No.630 of 2022 remitted back to the Additional Commissioner, Additional Revision Court-IV, Bhubaneswar for fresh hearing after giving opportunity to both parties – Direction to dispose of the revision within three months from petitioner’s appearance [Paras 6-9].

Direction to Parties – Appearance Before Authority – Petitioner directed to appear before the Revisional Authority on 12.01.2026 and file certified copy of the judgment for further proceedings [Para 10].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

Service Law – Promotion – Non-Communication of APAR – Belated Communication in One Lot – Respondent communicated APARs for years 2008–09 to 2011–12 together in April 2013 just prior to DPC – Benchmark of 21/25 under Rules, 2012 not met – Held: Inordinate delay in communication frustrates object of APAR system – Violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 – Action arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 12, 17-18].

APAR – Purpose of Communication – Improvement and Representation – Supreme Court in Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh held every entry, whether adverse or not, must be communicated within reasonable time – Communication enables employee to improve performance and make effective representation – Belated communication defeats both objects – Sending APARs in one lot amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity [Paras 10.1-10.3, 11-14].

Benchmark for Promotion – Introduction under Rules, 2012 – 21 out of 25 for E-3 to E-4 based on last 5 years’ APARs – Though employer entitled to change rules and prescribe benchmark – However, employee cannot be prejudiced by employer’s failure to timely communicate APARs – Held: Benchmark cannot be applied to petitioner in circumstances of unfair conduct [Paras 8-8.1, 15, 18.4].

Natural Justice – Fairness in Administrative Action – Rules of natural justice flexible – Test is whether authority acted fairly – Inordinate delay without justification in communicating APARs amounts to unfair action – Right to be considered for promotion infringed due to arbitrary conduct of employer [Paras 11, 15-16].

Prejudice – Denial of Opportunity to Improve – Petitioner’s subsequent APARs (2012–13 onwards) graded ‘Very Good’/‘Outstanding’ after regular communication – Demonstrates importance of timely communication – Court held that earlier timely communication could have enabled petitioner to achieve benchmark – Employer’s lapse cannot operate to petitioner’s detriment [Paras 14, 18.2-18.3].

Right to Promotion – Distinction – No fundamental right to promotion but right to be considered is fundamental – When consideration denied due to arbitrary and unfair action of employer, Court can intervene under Article 226 – Held: Petitioner’s right to be fairly considered stood violated [Paras 15, 18.3].

Relief – Direction to DPC – Respondent directed to convene DPC within one month – Consider petitioner for promotion from E-3 to E-4 without applying benchmark under Rules, 2012 – If found eligible, grant promotion from date junior promoted with notional benefits and continuity but without monetary benefits [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Belated communication of APARs held arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and principles of natural justice – Respondent directed to reconsider petitioner’s case for promotion without applying benchmark of 21/25 under Rules, 2012 – Notional benefits granted if found eligible.