FIR Quashing – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 171/2023 under IPC Sections 417/419/468/471/120B – Allegations of creating fake email and impersonation for filing false complaints – Petition dismissed, FIR not quashed. [Para 1, 27]

Complaints Against Government Officer – Alleged conspiracy and impersonation to file false complaints against a Special Secretary – Complainant alleges being induced by petitioner under the promise of a job – Petitioner's involvement in creating fake email and documents indicated. [Para 2-5, 22-24]

Investigation – Authenticity of Complaints – Analysis of email IDs, phone records, and CDRs – Petitioner’s alleged involvement in creating false documents and impersonation – Investigation findings supporting complainant’s allegations. [Para 12-14, 16-20]

Legal Precedents – Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Application of principles from various judicial precedents – Court’s inherent powers to be exercised sparingly and only when justified – No case made out for quashing FIR based on current evidence and investigation status. [Para 25, 27]

Evidence – Illegality of Procurement – Court's discretion to admit evidence obtained through illegal means if relevant – Evidence's admissibility based on relevance, not on how it was obtained. [Para 26]

Decision – Petition for quashing FIR under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – FIR to continue with ongoing investigation – Court's observations not a comment on the merits of the case. [Para 27-29]

Service Law - Increment Entitlement after Retirement – Government servants retiring on June 30th entitled to increment due on July 1st – Petitioners, retired government servants, seeking increment and consequential benefits – Reliance on judgments of various High Courts and the Supreme Court affirming this entitlement. [Para 3, 5.1, 5.2]

Legal Position on Grant of Increment Post-Retirement – The Supreme Court and various High Courts' stance on granting increment post-retirement – Interpretation of regulations to avoid arbitrariness and ensure fairness in granting increments earned through service with good conduct. [Para 3, 5.1, 6.5]

Decision – Grant of increment to petitioners retiring on June 30th upheld – Directed revision of pension and other retirement benefits, including arrears with interest, if applicable – Petition allowed for specified petitioners, dismissed for others not meeting criteria. [Para 6, 7, 8]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour Case – Appeal against acquittal of respondent-accused in a case involving Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1886. Complainant failed to identify accused in court leading to acquittal by trial court. Appeal challenges the method and reasoning of acquittal. [Para 1, 2, 5]

Evidence and Identification – Importance of Identification in Cheque Dishonour Cases – Complainant’s failure to identify the accused in court considered insufficient ground for acquittal. Discussion on the distinction between criminal intent and proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. [Para 5, 9, 11]

Presumption in Favour of Complainant – Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act – Accused's failure to rebut the presumption in favor of the complainant. Complainant’s case supported by documentary evidence, while accused’s defense limited to reply in the demand notice without substantial evidence. [Para 5.1, 11]

Procedure and Fair Trial – Need for Thorough Examination and Fair Trial – Trial court’s hasty decision and limited cross-examination critiqued. Emphasis on thorough and fair trial procedures, especially in the context of cheque dishonour cases under the N.I. Act. [Para 7, 9, 12]

Decision – Remand for Fresh Adjudication – High Court sets aside the trial court’s judgment and order. Case remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration from the stage of cross-examination of the complainant, ensuring both parties have a fair opportunity to present evidence. [Para 12, 13]

Attempt to Murder (Section 307 IPC) – Conviction and Sentence – Appellant convicted for attempted murder under Section 307 of IPC, with rigorous imprisonment of five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000; in default, simple imprisonment for one year. Accused 2 and 3 convicted under Section 114 read with Section 307 of IPC, sentenced to simple imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each; in default, six months imprisonment. [Para 2]

Prosecution Case – Incident of Assault – Accused allegedly assaulted PW3 due to enmity and instigation, causing grievous injuries with a chopper. Charge framed against Accused 1 for offence under Section 307 IPC and against Accused 2 and 3 for offence under Section 114 read with Section 307 IPC. [Para 3]

Contradictions and Reliability of Witnesses – Defense contention of false complaint due to enmity and discrepancies in witness statements. Key witnesses PW1, PW3, and PW5 confirming assault by Accused 1, but not fully corroborated by other witnesses. [Para 5]

Assessment of Evidence – Consideration of witness testimonies, wound certificate, and other evidence leading to conviction of Accused 1 for assault under Section 307 IPC. Insufficient evidence against Accused 2 and 3 for instigation under Section 114 read with Section 307 IPC. [Paras 8-12]

Judgment – Accused 1's conviction under Section 307 IPC upheld, whereas Accused 2 and 3 acquitted of charges under Section 114 read with Section 307 IPC due to lack of sufficient evidence. [Para 14]

Criminal Procedure Code – Quashing of FIR – Petition under Section 482 CrPC – Kalandra under Section 182 IPC against petitioners (complainant and shadow witness in a bribery case) – Allegation of giving false information and resiling from initial statement – Competent authority denied sanction for prosecution – Kalandra and consequent proceedings quashed. [Paras 1, 6, 7]

Judicial Process – Sanction for Prosecution – Necessity of sanction for prosecution in corruption cases – Competent authority's refusal to grant sanction negates jurisdiction for cognizance of offense – Importance of sanction in determining the course of prosecution and implication of complainant. [Para 6]

Evidence – Phenol Phthalein Test – Use in corruption case to establish receipt of bribe – Change of solution color to light pink indicating accused's contact with currency notes treated with phenanthrene powder – Role in establishing occurrence of bribery despite absence of sanction for prosecution. [Para 6]

Decision – High Court's quashing of proceedings for want of sanction and lack of false information by petitioner – Reiterates importance of sanction in corruption cases and safeguards against wrongful prosecution of complainants. [Para 7]

Bail Application – NDPS Act – Petitioner seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC for alleged violation of NDPS Act – Commercial quantity of contraband involved – Previous criminal history considered. [Para 1-4, 7-8]

Judicial Discretion in Bail – Criminal History Relevance – Criminal history to include only cases with convictions or pending FIRs where accused is arraigned – Acquittals, discharges, quashed FIRs, withdrawn prosecutions, or closed cases not to be included. [Para 6]

Bail Conditions – NDPS Act – Rigorous Section 37 NDPS Act requires satisfaction of twin conditions for bail – Need for substantial probable cause for believing accused is not guilty – Role of the court in assessing the likelihood of the accused not committing the offence while on bail. [Para 11-12]

Disclosure Statements – Reliability and Admissibility – Skepticism over reliance solely on disclosure statements for implicating accused – Reference to Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu regarding inadmissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act. [Para 10, 14]

Bail Granted – Stringent Conditions Imposed – Petitioner granted bail subject to multiple stringent conditions, including personal bond, surety, restrictions on SIM cards, and surrender of weapons – Conditions tailored to prevent recurrence of offence and ensure trial attendance. [Para 13, 15-26]

Bail Order – Dynamic Applicability – Provisions for adjusting bond amount and modifying bail conditions in case of changed circumstances or hardship to the petitioner – Ensuring balance between individual rights and trial fairness. [Para 28]

Challenge to Order Declining Rejection of Plaint – The petitioner sought rejection of the plaint for recovery of Rs. 19,20,000 due to initial insufficiency of court-fee and alleged delay in making up the deficiency, contending the claim became time-barred – Original plaint filed with Rs. 50 court-fee, with a promise to pay the remaining Rs. 47,550 later – The trial court declined the rejection. [Paras 1-2]

Submission of Court-Fee – The plaintiff filed the required court-fee on 02.08.2023, after the initial insufficiency – This act was in response to the defendant's application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, arguing the required court-fee was Rs. 1,00,100 and the delay rendered the suit time-barred. [Paras 2, 4]

Application of Section 149 CPC – Even though the plaintiff didn’t specify the legal provision under which the additional court-fee was submitted, the action aligns with Section 149 CPC – The Supreme Court's precedent suggests that non-mentioning of a specific legal provision doesn’t invalidate an action if the jurisdiction to act is established. [Para 5]

Provision of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Clauses (b) and (c) address rejection of plaints for court-fee issues – The plaintiff's submission of the deficit court-fee prior to any court order for correction negates the grounds for plaint rejection under these clauses. [Para 6]

Maintainability of Revision-Petition – The Supreme Court in Sri Rathnavarmaraja vs. Smt. Vimla observed that the issue of proper court-fee is primarily between the plaintiff and the State – The defendant does not have the right to appeal or seek revision against the order regarding court-fee payment. [Para 7]

Precedents' Applicability – Cited judgments (P.K. Palanisamy and K.C. Skaria) don’t support the defendant’s position – The plaintiff did not seek an amendment to increase the claim, nor was such an increase evidenced during the trial, differentiating from the circumstances in K.C. Skaria. [Para 8]

Decision: Revision-petition dismissed due to lack of illegality, irregularity, infirmity, or perversity in the impugned order.

Petition for Quashing Complaint and Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners challenging Complaint No.1368 of 2014 and related orders for alleged tax evasion under Sections 276C and 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Argument of petitioners centered on no evasion of tax, only delayed payment with interest [Paras 1, 10].

Facts of the Case – Assessment Year 2012-13 – Petitioner No.1, a company, filed income tax return with self-assessment of tax pending – Tax paid with interest after the due date – Prosecution initiated for alleged tax evasion [Paras 2-8].

Legal Contentions – Petitioner's Argument: No willful evasion of tax, only delay in payment – Relied on judgments to argue that delay in tax payment does not amount to evasion – Respondent’s Argument: Willful evasion of tax, causing loss to the department [Paras 10-11].

Legal Analysis and Precedents – Examination of Section 276C of the Act – Reference to various High Court judgments emphasizing that delayed tax payment does not constitute tax evasion if the tax is ultimately paid [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Complaint and Proceedings Quashed – Court finds no evasion of tax, only delayed payment with interest – Held that delayed payment does not amount to tax evasion as per settled legal principles – Complaint No.1368 of 2014, order dated 20.08.2018, order dated 06.09.2018, and all consequential proceedings quashed [Para 16].

Criminal Law - SCST Act – Acquittal -  Factual Background and Conviction by Trial Court – Hari Singh was convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act for insulting Dhanna Singh, a person of Scheduled Caste, during a panchayat meeting on 20.07.2000 – Conviction based on statements from PW1, PW2, and PW3, who alleged derogatory caste-related remarks were made by the appellant and others – Trial court sentenced the appellant to six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine. [Para 1, 2, 5, 14]

Appeal Grounds and Contentions – Appellant claimed false implication, delay in complaint filing, lack of independent corroboration, and argued that the witnesses were biased or unreliable – Challenged the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses and highlighted absence of independent corroboration. [Paras 16, 17]

High Court's Analysis and Decision – Acquittal - High Court observed lack of evidence to prove appellant used caste-related derogatory remarks – Noted inconsistencies and lack of independent corroboration in witness testimonies – Found delay in filing complaint unexplained – Acquitted appellant due to failure of prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 20-24]