Quashing of FIR – Section 482 CrPC – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust, and caste-based abuse – Allegations involved inducement to pay large sums to bribe judges – Court held FIR cannot be quashed as investigation is at a preliminary stage – Specific allegations of serious nature requiring investigation – Petitioner granted protection from arrest till filing of final report – Directed to cooperate with investigation – Emphasized non-interference in ongoing investigation [Paras 1-13].

Protection from Arrest – SC & ST Act – Sections 18 and 18A – Bar on anticipatory bail – Court exercised inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to grant protection from arrest where remedy under Section 438 CrPC not available – Reiterated principle from Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. – Arrest not justified without reasonable satisfaction [Paras 8-25].

Prima Facie Allegations – Maintainability – Held even if money was paid for illegal purpose (bribing judges), criminal proceedings maintainable – Reliance on Yacoob v. Emperor and Nagi Reddy v. State – Court highlighted importance of investigating serious allegations impacting judiciary’s integrity [Paras 3-7].

Decision – Petition partly allowed – Investigation to continue – Protection from arrest granted – Detailed guidelines issued for investigation, including aspects of pendency of related cases, financial transactions, and compliance with legal procedures [Paras 10-11].

Motor Vehicles – Compensation for Injuries – Appellant (insurance company) challenged the award of compensation for injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident – Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,77,130/- with 9% p.a. interest – Appellant contended the driver did not have a valid license to drive a light motor transport vehicle – High Court held that the driver had a valid license for light motor non-transport vehicle and no evidence showed the owner had knowledge of any license issues – Tribunal’s decision upheld [Paras 1-16].

Driving License – Validity and Insurance Liability – Ex.B-2 established the driver had a valid license – No evidence of owner’s knowledge of any invalidity – Insurance company’s argument dismissed based on absence of proof of owner’s knowledge of license issue [Para 13].

Interest on Compensation – Tribunal awarded 9% p.a. interest on compensation amount – Appellant sought modification citing lower bank interest rates at the time – High Court found no merit in this argument and upheld Tribunal’s decision [Para 15].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court confirmed the award and decree by the Tribunal – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, are closed [Para 16].

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff’s suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell was dismissed by the trial court. The High Court upheld the dismissal, noting the plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations by the stipulated date. The plaintiffs were aware of the pending litigation involving the suit property but did not take timely action to seek specific performance [Paras 12-15].

Disclosure of Pending Litigation – Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Plaintiffs claimed the defendants did not disclose the pending litigation affecting the suit property. The High Court found that plaintiffs, by exercising due diligence, could have discovered the status of the litigation. The doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act applied, meaning the plaintiffs were aware or ought to have been aware of the litigation [Paras 12-13].

Internal Agreement among Plaintiffs – Not Binding on Defendants – An internal agreement among the plaintiffs to share the purchase consideration was not binding on the defendants. The trial court and the High Court rejected the argument that the 1^st plaintiff could pay only his share of the sale consideration. The obligation to pay the total consideration collectively was emphasized [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The High Court confirmed the trial court’s judgment, dismissing the appeal. The plaintiffs failed to prove their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract. The equitable relief of specific performance was denied due to the plaintiffs’ conduct and lack of sufficient funds [Para 15].

Administrative Law – Discretionary Power – Licensing Authority – Appellant challenged interim order permitting racing and betting activities by the Bengaluru Turf Club despite rejection of their license applications – Court held that licensing authority exercised proper discretion based on pending criminal cases against Club’s office bearers and allegations of illegal activities – Interim order allowing activities set aside – Emphasis on statutory provisions granting discretionary power to authorities in issuing licenses [Paras 5-6].

Criminal Law – Pending Criminal Proceedings – Impact on Licensing – Office bearers of the Bengaluru Turf Club facing criminal charges for betting-related offenses – Court found sufficient grounds in pending criminal cases to justify refusal of license – Rejection upheld as a valid exercise of administrative discretion [Paras 5.3-5.6].

Interim Relief – Nature and Scope – Court observed that interim order by Single Judge effectively granted final relief by allowing racing activities – Such interim orders not permissible as they render main relief sought in the petition redundant – Order granting interim relief stayed [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Interim order by learned Single Judge stayed – Respondent-Club prohibited from conducting racing and betting activities during pendency of main petition – Matter to be decided on merits in final hearing [Para 10].

Employment Law – Transfer and Posting – Appeal against order favoring employee’s writ petition challenging compulsory retirement due to unauthorized absence – Employer's prerogative to decide employee's place of work emphasized – Health issues and political influence in transfer orders considered – Court upholds employer's decision, reinstates punishment of compulsory retirement [Paras 1-8].

Absenteeism and Misconduct – Employee claimed health issues as reason for absenteeism – Medical report did not support health-related leave – Unauthorized absence deemed misconduct – Supreme Court precedents affirm disciplinary action for such absence [Paras 5-7].

Political Influence in Service Matters – Court criticized political interference in employee transfers and postings – Noted it disrupts public administration – Court disapproved employee’s act of seeking political influence, affecting writ relief eligibility [Para 7].

Judicial Review of Disciplinary Actions – Findings of guilt in disciplinary proceedings generally upheld – Limited judicial interference, especially when departmental appeals fail on merits – Court supports employer’s disciplinary decisions unless exceptions apply [Para 8].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Order of the learned Single Judge set aside – Compulsory retirement of the respondent-employee reinstated – Benefits accruing from compulsory retirement to be processed within eight weeks, with interest for delays.

Criminal Law – Rape and Cheating – Appellant convicted for rape under the pretext of false promise of marriage – Trial court’s judgment affirmed by High Court – Appellant argued that the prosecutrix knew he was married and that her consent was not obtained under misconception – High Court emphasized the absence of evidence proving misconception or coercion [Paras 1-14].

Consent under Section 90 IPC – Misconception of Fact – Court highlighted that prosecutrix knew about appellant’s marital status – Consent given by prosecutrix for sexual intercourse not influenced by a promise of marriage – Section 90 not applicable [Paras 33-48].

Evidentiary Standards – Witness Testimony – Court examined contradictions and interpolations in testimonies of P.W.1 and other prosecution witnesses – Noted discrepancies undermining reliability of evidence – Medical examination showed no signs of force or violence [Paras 37-47, 62-64].

Delay in Lodging Complaint – Explained in Context – Court acknowledged cultural and social hesitation in reporting sexual offences – Delay of five days in lodging FIR considered reasonable in context – However, investigation deemed shoddy and delayed without reasonable cause [Paras 66-74].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled [Paras 74-74].

Contempt of Court – Willful Disobedience – Petitioners sought to punish respondents for disobeying orders of the Division Bench of the High Court – Respondents claimed good faith, misunderstanding the status of interim order – Court accepted unconditional apologies considering no further actions were taken post-execution petition – Contempt case closed with direction to respondents to halt further proceedings in E.P.12/2022 [Paras 1-8].

Execution of Compromise Decree – Lok Adalat Award – Compromise reached and award passed by Lok Adalat required execution of sale deed – Respondent filed execution petition post interim stay order, misunderstanding it was vacated – Court emphasized the duty to verify the status of interim orders before proceeding [Paras 2-4].

Apology and Undertaking – Respondent’s Conditional Compliance – Respondent tendered unconditional apology and submitted undertaking to cease further actions in execution proceedings till disposal of main writ petition – Court accepted apology but highlighted the importance of verifying court orders [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Contempt Case Closed – Held – Apologies accepted and directions given to halt proceedings in E.P.12/2022 – No costs awarded – Interlocutory applications, if any, to stand closed [Para 8].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheques – Petitioner issued cheques to the respondent which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Legal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act initiated – Settlement agreement reached, but petitioner failed to comply fully – Respondent invoked Section 421 of the Cr.P.C. for enforcement – Court upheld the enforcement of settlement terms [Paras 1-10].

Settlement Agreement – Non-compliance – Settlement under Section 147 of the NI Act – Petitioner failed to pay agreed amount – Court confirmed liberty for respondent to recover amount through Section 421 of Cr.P.C. – Emphasized that settlement subsumes original complaint and failure leads to fresh cause of action [Paras 6-8].

Jurisdiction and Legal Principles – Apex Court’s observations on settlement agreements and subsequent liabilities – Reference to cases Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels, Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy – Court noted principles but found them inapplicable to petitioner’s arguments [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Criminal Petition Rejected – Interim order dissolved – Emphasized enforcement of settlements and no merit in technical objections by petitioner [Para 10].

Habeas Corpus – Right to Autonomy – Petitioner parents sought custody of their adult daughter (Ms. X), claiming psychological issues and illegal detention by the 5^th respondent – High Court, after interaction, found Ms. X to be of sound mind, having made an informed choice to live with her partner – Petition dismissed, respecting the right to autonomy and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 1-13].

LGBTQ+ Rights – Familial Rejection – High Court emphasized the significance of recognizing chosen families for LGBTQ+ individuals, highlighting the potential violence and lack of safety from natal families – Court upheld Ms. X’s right to live with her chosen partner, rejecting assumptions based on erroneous psychological assessments [Paras 7-10].

Right to Privacy – Constitutional Protection – Reinforced that sexual orientation is integral to personal identity and privacy – Cited Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, affirming that decisional autonomy is a core part of the right to privacy under Articles 14, 15, and 21 [Paras 10-11].

Directive for Document Handover – Petitioners directed to submit Ms. X’s educational certificates and personal IDs to the police for safe transfer to her, ensuring her ability to seek employment and independence – Emphasized no threats or violence to be allowed against Ms. X [Paras 12-13].

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – Petitioners directed to hand over all personal documents of Ms. X to the police – High Court reiterated the importance of acceptance and support from families towards LGBTQ+ individuals.