Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet – Petition for quashing FIR registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, and relevant sections of the Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Adhiniyam 2005 – FIR related to misuse of JCB machine for manual labor work under MGNREGA – Petitioner retired and no charge-sheet filed – Provisions of Rule 9(3) of Pension Rules, 1976 applied – Held, no judicial proceedings initiated within four years from the FIR registration – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed. [Paras 1-14]

Application of Rule 9(3) of Pension Rules, 1976 – Analysis – Held – Proceedings initiated after more than four years from FIR registration, post retirement – Violation of statutory provision – Judicial proceedings cannot be initiated after retirement for acts done beyond four years – Charge-sheet not filed, rendering judicial proceedings non-instituted. [Para 4, 10]

Facts and Irregularity – Not Embezzlement – Held – No mens rea or criminal intent – Work executed via JCB paid appropriately – No misappropriation for personal gain – FIR reflects payment and method – Departmental inquiry gave clean chit – Only procedural irregularity, not criminality. [Para 5, 8, 12-13]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Subsequent Proceedings – FIR and subsequent legal proceedings quashed based on Rule 9(3) of Pension Rules, absence of criminal intent, and clean chit from departmental inquiry – Petition allowed. [Para 14-15]

Bail – Section 439 Cr.P.C. – NDPS Act – Prolonged Custody and Delay in Trial – Bail applications by petitioners arrested with 23600 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride. Petitioners in custody since 27.11.2020, with trial progress minimal, citing only 3 out of 13 witnesses examined over 3.5 years. Held: Prolonged incarceration violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Supreme Court precedents support bail when custody exceeds a substantial part of the prescribed sentence and trial delay not attributable to petitioners. Bail granted. [Paras 1-13]

Criminal Law – Bail in NDPS Cases – Twin Conditions under Section 37 – Supreme Court in _Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha_ interpreted prolonged incarceration and delayed trials as grounds for bail despite Section 37 NDPS Act conditions. Constitutional courts retain bail discretion on Part III violations. [Paras 5, 8-10]

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioners Ranjeet Singh and Preetpal Singh granted bail due to prolonged custody and lack of trial progress. Petitioners must furnish personal bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each. Conditions include mandatory court appearance and non-misuse of bail. [Paras 12-14]

Marriage Law – Cruelty and Divorce – Appeal by husband against Family Court's dismissal of divorce and decree for restitution of conjugal rights – Family Court found cruelty by wife proved but did not grant divorce due to failure to establish desertion – High Court held cruelty alone sufficient for divorce – Judgment dismissing divorce set aside and decree of divorce granted – Restitution decree in favor of wife set aside – Husband not compelled to cohabit after cruelty proven [Paras 1-36].

Cruelty as Ground for Divorce – Family Court acknowledged cruelty but denied divorce – High Court noted unchallenged finding of cruelty warranted divorce despite absence of desertion proof – Court emphasized independence of each ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Irreconcilable with decree for restitution of conjugal rights [Paras 21-25].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – More than a decade of separation and failed reconciliation attempts highlighted – Court observed no meaningful marital relationship remained, warranting dissolution of marriage – Court declined alternative relief of judicial separation under Section 13A due to protracted separation and hostile relationship [Paras 30-31].

Liberty to Seek Alimony – Respondent-wife granted liberty to seek permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Act in separate proceedings – No evidence or prayer for alimony in current appeals [Para 32].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Family Court's dismissal of divorce and decree for restitution set aside – Divorce granted on grounds of cruelty – Respondent entitled to seek alimony separately – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 33-36].

Administrative Law – Reorganization – Trifurcation of DGS affecting ministerial staff – Tribunal's order directing remedy of lacunae without quashing reorganization – Petitioners required to devise a package for affected employees within three months – Petitioners to correct discrepancies practically and logically [Paras 1-60].

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Disparity in Pay – Post-trifurcation, discrepancies in pay and allowances between staff of different units (SSB, ARC, SFF) – Tribunal directed parity in benefits for SSB staff akin to ARC and SFF staff – Specific directions for grade pay adjustment and special allowances [Paras 9-50].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Tribunal’s order upheld – Petitioners to resolve the issue of pay parity and other benefits within three months – Pending applications for impleadment dismissed – Applicants advised to seek remedy through appropriate legal avenues [Paras 51-61].

Murder and Dying Declaration – Acquittal Appeal – State challenged acquittal of accused for murder under IPC Section 302 – High Court upheld acquittal, citing lack of credible evidence and discrepancies in witness testimonies – Emphasized necessity of clear evidence to overturn acquittal [Paras 1-13].

Evidence and Witness Testimony – Prosecution's Failure – Court noted prosecution's failure to present consistent and corroborative evidence – Key witnesses turned hostile, and contradictions in complainant’s statements weakened the case – Dying declaration not considered due to lack of clarity on the deceased’s conscious state [Paras 6-7, 10].

Legal Principles and Standards – Presumption of Innocence – Court reinforced the principle that acquittal should not be overturned unless findings are perverse or manifestly erroneous – Referenced Supreme Court rulings underscoring cautious approach in reversing acquittals [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – Trial court's judgment upheld due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in prosecution’s case [Paras 13].

Habeas Corpus - Custody of Minor Child - Welfare of Child – Criminal Allegations of Dowry Harassment – Habeas corpus petition filed for the custody of a minor child – Custody taken by father alleged to be forceful – Consideration of child's welfare paramount – Two-month-old child taken from mother, who is alleged to have been subjected to cruelty for dowry – Supreme Court and High Court precedents prioritize child’s welfare over legal rights of parents – Held, custody to be handed to mother considering tender age and necessity of maternal care – Court directs compliance with visitation rights for father. [Paras 1-39]

Role of Parents in Custody – Analysis – Held – Petitioner (mother) alleged forceful taking of the child by respondent no.6 (father) – Father's custody claimed to be lawful by petitioner’s prior consent – Examined welfare needs of child, concluded welfare better secured with mother due to tender age and need for maternal care – Court recognizes the necessity for financial support by father, regardless of custody outcome. [Paras 1-39]

Decision - Custody Awarded to Mother – Habeas Corpus Writ Petition allowed – Court orders transfer of custody to the mother within seven days – Chief Judicial Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh to ensure compliance – Father granted visitation rights twice a week. [Paras 34-39]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – High Court exercises its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 42/2015 – Dispute between parties found to be civil in nature – Petitioner alleged to have illegally occupied property despite expired license agreement – Court held no ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust established – Criminal proceedings deemed abuse of process of law [Paras 1-22].

Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Civil disputes being converted into criminal cases – Supreme Court guidelines discourage using criminal prosecution to settle civil disputes – Court quashes FIR based on predominant civil nature of dispute and concurrent civil suits pending – Emphasis on distinguishing civil remedies from criminal prosecution [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Quashing of FIR – Held – FIR No. 42/2015 quashed as it constituted an abuse of legal process – The dispute, primarily civil in nature, is being addressed in civil courts – Criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil matters – Observations made to have no bearing on ongoing civil suits [Para 21].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appeal against the conviction for the murder of Nem Singh – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Recovery of axe and blood-stained clothes from appellant’s house deemed insufficient as primary evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Conviction also questioned due to lack of clear motive and chain of evidence [Paras 1-48].
Circumstantial Evidence – Requirements for Conviction – Emphasis on the need for a complete chain of evidence excluding any hypothesis of innocence – Court held that mere suspicion cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt – The importance of motive in circumstantial cases reaffirmed [Paras 30-31].
Recovery Evidence – Admissibility and Relevance – Critique of the lower court’s reliance on recovery of weapons and clothes under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Absence of proper procedural adherence for disclosure statements – Court noted that conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act cannot solely ground a conviction [Paras 32-44].
Abscondence of Accused – Not sufficient for Conviction – Court held that mere abscondence cannot lead to a firm conclusion of guilt, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence to substantiate charges [Paras 45-46].
Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted – High Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant’s bail bonds canceled and sureties discharged [Para 48].
 

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence Set Aside – Criminal Appeal against Trial Court's conviction for murder – Allegation of killing brother over property dispute – Evidence purely circumstantial with no direct eyewitness account – Prosecution's failure to establish motive convincingly – Suspicion alone insufficient for conviction – Held that chain of circumstances not complete to exclude hypothesis of innocence – Appellant acquitted.

Circumstantial Evidence – Requirements for Conviction – Analysis – Held – Prosecution failed to provide a complete and unbroken chain of evidence to link the appellant conclusively to the crime – Established principles demand exclusion of every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused – Appellant's presence and conduct insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 28-32]

Recovery of Weapon and Clothes – Admissibility – Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act – Held – Recovery of the axe and blood-stained clothes did not meet the legal standards for admissibility – Prosecution failed to prove the exact disclosure statement as required under law – Recovery of items from open, accessible place further weakens the evidence. [Paras 32-40]

Conduct of Accused – Relevance under Section 8 of Evidence Act – Held – Conduct of the accused in recovery of items noted but insufficient to form sole basis for conviction – Apex Court’s caution that conduct alone cannot establish guilt for serious offenses like murder applied – Benefit of doubt granted. [Paras 41-46]

Abscondence of Accused – Legal Implications – Held – Mere abscondence cannot be construed as conclusive proof of guilt – Innocent individuals may also abscond due to fear of wrongful arrest – Not a determinative factor in absence of solid evidence. [Para 45]

Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Incriminating Circumstances – Failure to Put to Accused – Held – Crucial recovery evidence not presented to the appellant during his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Violates legal principles ensuring fair opportunity for defense – Weighs in favor of acquittal. [Para 44]

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted. The trial court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC is overturned due to insufficient evidence and lack of conclusive proof. Appellant's bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged. Compliance with Section 437A Cr.P.C. required within 15 days.