Criminal Appeal – Challenge to denial of regular bail – Appellant seeks to set aside the impugned order dismissing his bail application – Arrested in a case related to a terror module planning IED Blasts – Allegations based on co-accused's disclosure statements and witness statements – Appellant's limited role as a middleman and lack of knowledge about the purpose of consignments emphasized. [Para 1-10]

UAPA Appeal - Bail - Applicability of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA - Assessment of the scope of exercise in an appeal under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act against the dismissal of a bail petition - Reference to principles laid down in Watali and Vernon - Examination of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA - Two conditions for denying bail under the section - Public Prosecutor's opportunity to be heard and prima facie belief in the accusation's truth - Guidance from Watali on the concept of "prima facie true" - Surface analysis of probative value of evidence - Overview of principles from Watali and Vernon - Broad assessment of evidence without detailed analysis - Relevance of CDR analysis - Examination of the appellant's role in a conspiracy involving IED bomb blasts - Differentiating from Vernon's case - Reference to Ghulam Mohd. Bhat case - Subjective nature of assessment - Difficulty in reaching a conclusion that accusations are not prima facie true - Role of the appellant as a link in a terrorist network - Discussion of conspiracy principles - Admissibility of evidence in conspiracy trials - Conclusion that reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusation is prima facie true - Dismissal of the appeal. [Para 11-32]

False FIR - Abuse of process of law - Mala fide intent - Quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC - Petitioner, an Afghan refugee, faced charges of forgery, theft, and molestation based on two complaints by the respondent no.2 - First complaint alleged forgery and theft, while the second complaint introduced allegations of molestation - CCTV footage was not shared with the police - Delay in filing the second complaint without adequate explanation - Material contradictions between the two complaints - Respondent no.2 materially changed the nature of allegations - Supreme Court precedent allowed quashing of proceedings if they are manifestly frivolous or vexatious and instituted with ulterior motive - Judicial conscience satisfied that proceedings were a misuse of the process of the court and ought to be quashed. [Para 1-33]

Legal Principles – Inherent Powers of High Court Under Section 482 CrPC – Discussion on the scope and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court for exercising the inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that the inherent powers can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice. [Para 13-17]

Jurisdiction – Scope of Judicial Scrutiny in Quashing Proceedings – Court emphasized that it is not just enough to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone, but to look into other attending circumstances, if the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious. The Court is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case. [Para 15]

Inconsistencies in Complaints – Varied and improved allegations in subsequent complaints viewed with suspicion. The Court noted the substantial changes in the allegations made in the first complaint dated 13th July 2021 and the second complaint dated 10th September 2021, especially concerning physical abuse and molestation. [Para 23-24]

Delay and Omissions – Lack of prompt filing of specific allegations and failure to provide CCTV footage. The Court found it suspicious that the complainant waited for two months to file a fresh complaint and did not provide the CCTV footage of the alleged incident. [Para 24-27]

Charge Sheet – Omission of Original Offences – The Court observed that the charge sheet filed only mentioned offences under Sections 354/506 of the IPC and did not include the initial allegations of forgery and theft, without any grievance raised by the respondents. [Para 26]

Decision – In light of the aforementioned circumstances, including inconsistencies in the complaints and lack of promptness, the Court considered invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. [Para 18, 27]

Quashing Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC: High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should not be exercised to quash proceedings merely due to a settlement between parties, especially in serious offences such as those under Section 306 and 305 IPC. Offences of this nature are against society and not just against individuals. [Para 15, 50]

Serious Offences – Classification: Offences under Section 305 and 306 IPC categorized as serious and heinous, deemed as crimes against society. Settlement between the accused and complainant, including financial settlements, should not lead to quashing of these proceedings. [Para 50, 13]

Section 305 IPC – Ingredients: For an offence to be made out under Section 305 IPC, it must involve suicide by a person who is a minor, or delirious, or an idiot, or intoxicated, and the accused must have abetted the commission of the suicide. [Para 14, 305]

Framing of Charges – Trial Court’s Duty: The Trial Court must consider available materials on record while framing charges or at relevant stages in accordance with the law. [Para 15]

Trial to Proceed – Quashing Unwarranted: The present case contains prima facie material against the petitioners, warranting a trial. Quashing such a case would result in a miscarriage of justice. [Para 16, 17]

Miscellaneous – Disposal and Compliance: All connected applications disposed of; interim orders, if any, are vacated. Directions for urgent certified copies of this judgment and its dispatch to the trial court for compliance. [Para 18-21]

Writ of Mandamus – Right to Profession/Business – Rajasthani artisan petitioner alleges infringement by authorities in selling Vinayaka idols – Financial distress due to authorities' intervention – Context of environmental guidelines discussed – Court delves into Central Pollution Control Board's guidelines on idol immersions. [Para 4-8]

Environmental Guidelines – Compliance – Authorities accused of overstepping by restricting sale based on plaster of paris use – Court distinguishes between sale and immersion, stipulating that eco-friendly idols may be sold – Authorities warned against illegal prevention of sales. [Para 9]

Constitutional Rights – Article 19(1)(g) – Court upholds petitioner's fundamental right to sell idols as part of his profession/business – However, conditions imposed on sale to ensure eco-friendly practices and to protect water bodies – Register to be maintained for buyer details. [Para 10]

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Authorities directed not to interfere with petitioner's right to sell eco-friendly Vinayaka idols, subject to the condition that sales are to be recorded in a register for inspection – No cost order. [Para 11]

Commercial Dispute – Termination of Supervisor’s Employment – Challenge to the Labor Court’s Award – Petitioner company engaged in manufacturing diesel generators – Respondent appointed as Supervisor with a probation period – Allegation of gambling at the workplace – Warning issued to respondent – Probation extended multiple times – Termination of respondent’s service due to non-extension of probation – Dispute raised before the Labor Court – Labor Court’s award directing reinstatement and benefits – Petitioner challenges award on grounds of respondent’s status as a non-workman and gainful employment – Award set aside, and Writ Petition allowed. [Para 1-13]

Registration of FIR – Mandate of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh – Petitioner seeks direction for registering an FIR related to a murder case – Petitioner’s complaint and medical report establish the occurrence of a cognizable offence – Failure to register an FIR amounts to dereliction of duty by the police officer. [Para 5-7]

Lalita Kumari Guidelines – Court reiterates the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari case – Registration of FIR is mandatory when a cognizable offence is disclosed – Preliminary inquiry permissible only in specific circumstances – Police officers must follow the guidelines scrupulously, failure to do so may result in disciplinary proceedings. [Para 5-7, 11]

Alternative Remedy – Despite the availability of an alternative remedy, the Court exercises its writ jurisdiction due to the exceptional nature of the case and the potential dilution of evidence – The argument for an alternative remedy is not accepted. [Para 9]

Direction to Register FIR – Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police directed to register an FIR forthwith – Director General of Police instructed to issue necessary Circular/SOP to all Station House Officers, emphasizing compliance with Lalita Kumari guidelines – Disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against non-compliance – Timeframe of two weeks provided for compliance. [Para 10-12]

Independence of Investigation – The Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the complaint – The investigation shall be conducted independently and in accordance with the law. [Para 15]

Civil Law - Specific Performance - Suit for Possession - Intention of Parties - Regular Second Appeal against concurrent findings of fact - Specific Relief Act, 1963, S. 20 - Suit for possession by way of specific performance - Held, it is settled law that intention of the parties is the basic essence for execution of any document - Agreement executed for advancing loan and not for sale - Appeal dismissed - In the present case, the court observed that the agreement to sell was not executed with the intention of registering a sale deed but as collateral security for a loan. The court referred to previous judgments to support the finding that the plaintiff's actions were consistent with securing a loan rather than purchasing the property​​ .

Intention Behind Agreement to Sell - Analysis - Held, intention of the parties at the time of execution was crucial - The court noted that despite significant payments made by the plaintiff, possession was not taken, and dates for executing the sale deed were repeatedly extended, indicating the agreement was for security rather than a genuine sale .

Decision - Dismissal of Suit and Appeal - The suit for specific performance was dismissed by the trial court, and the dismissal was upheld by the first appellate court. The regular second appeal was also dismissed, confirming that the agreement in question was not intended to culminate in a sale deed .

Cheque dishonor under section 138 of NI Act - Dispute between Lokesh Thakkar and Amandeep Singh regarding investment and financial transactions - Amandeep Singh, as Director of M/s Shalini Securities Private Limited, issued 11 cheques amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs each, which got dishonored due to "Funds Insufficient" - Allegations and averments made against M/s Shalini Securities Private Limited and Amandeep Singh in the complaint - Amandeep Singh's resignation as Director in 2012 - Questions regarding possession of cheques and their issuance under such circumstances - Need for evidence to determine liability - Trial court's order taking cognizance upheld. [Para 1-13]

Writ Petition – Recovery of Sales Tax – Petitioner impugns Ext.P1 and Ext.P4 notices related to recovery of Sales Tax dues along with interest and collection charges – Petitioner challenges the authority of the District Collector to grant installments under Kerala General Sales Tax Act and Rules. [Para 2-3]

Statutory Provisions – Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963, and Section 23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act – Counsel for the petitioner submits willingness to pay outstanding amount in installments as per Rule 30(B) of KGST Rules. [Para 3-4]

Tax Liability – Petitioner's outstanding tax amount quantified as Rs. 1,55,11,002/- including tax, interest, collection charges, and processing costs as per the notice dated 11.08.2023 – District Collector lacks authority to grant installments for such payments. [Para 4]

Jurisdiction – The assessing authority, i.e., Sales Tax Officer (4th respondent), empowered to grant up to 6 installments for payment of tax dues as per Rule 30(B) of the KGST Rules. [Para 4-5]

Direction – Petitioner allowed to apply for 6 installments within ten days; 4th respondent to decide on the application within 15 days – Implementation of impugned notices stayed for one month. [Para 5-6]