Constitutional Law - Delay and Laches - Right of Voluntary Employees to be Recalled – LPA challenging the dismissal of writ petitions seeking re-employment as Home Guards – Petitioners were volunteers and not temporary, ad hoc, or daily wagers – Held, Article 14 does not imply negative equality and a wrong benefit cannot be allowed to multiply – No legal right to be recalled after two decades – Petitioners had absented on their own account and were duly discharged – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-24]

Employment Law - Volunteers vs. Regular Employees – Analysis – Petitioners served as Home Guards volunteers – Volunteers cannot claim continuous employment rights – Petitioners' services terminated after prolonged absence – No provision for reinstating discharged volunteers – Petitioners' claims rejected. [Paras 10, 21-23]

Judicial Review - Stale Claims - Re-examination – Consideration of stale claims after decades – Courts should not revive dead claims or allow claims barred by delay and laches – Direction to consider such claims may lead to judicial overreach and unintended revival of stale causes. [Paras 12-15]

Decision - Appeals Dismissed – No legal right to claim re-employment after prolonged absence – Petitioners' discharge upheld – State's appeal allowed, writ petitions dismissed. [Paras 23-24]

Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act - Stay of Proceedings under IBC:Criminal Misc. Petition—Section 482 CrPC—Petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 NI Act due to pendency of insolvency resolution under Section 94 IBC—Petitioner, a personal guarantor to a corporate debtor, filed for insolvency resolution—Court held that proceedings under Section 138 NI Act are to be automatically stayed during the interim moratorium under Section 96 IBC—Proceedings stayed. [Paras 1-23]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Personal Guarantor:Automatic Stay under Section 96 IBC—Held, personal guarantor to a corporate debtor cannot independently initiate insolvency proceedings unless the corporate debtor is already under such proceedings before NCLT—Section 96 moratorium applies to all debts and legal actions, including those under Section 138 NI Act, irrespective of the nature of the debt—Application under Section 94 IBC includes all debts, personal and corporate—Petition allowed, Section 138 proceedings stayed. [Para 23-38]

Negotiable Instruments Act - Interpretation of "Debt" and "Legal Action":Scope of Section 96 IBC—Term "any debt" under Section 96 IBC has a broad interpretation—Does not exclude debts subject to Section 138 NI Act—Term "any legal action" includes criminal proceedings under NI Act—Proceedings under Section 138 NI Act stayed despite the petitioner's insolvency application—Further delays in Section 138 proceedings acknowledged but necessary under IBC's automatic stay provisions. [Para 38]

Decision:Stay of Proceedings—Held, the interim moratorium under Section 96 IBC applies to proceedings under Section 138 NI Act initiated against the petitioner—Stay granted on proceedings under Section 138 NI Act during the pendency of the insolvency resolution process under Section 94 IBC—Petition allowed. [Para 38]

Criminal Law – Jurisdiction of Children's Court vs. NIA Special Court – Petition seeking transfer of trial – Respondent juvenile tried as an adult – FIR under UAPA and Explosive Substances Act – Jurisdiction vested in Children’s Court – Non-obstante clause in JJ Act, 2015 – Overriding effect on other laws – Held, Children's Court has jurisdiction.

Held: When an FIR is registered under a Scheduled Act prescribed under the NIA Act and a juvenile is directed to be tried as an adult by the Children’s Court, the jurisdiction lies with the Children’s Court and not the Special Judge under the NIA Act. The JJ Act, 2015 contains non-obstante clauses that give it an overriding effect over other laws. [Paras 1-42]

Applicability of JJ Act, 2015 – Overriding effect – Section 1(4) of JJ Act, 2015 gives it an overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force. Hence, jurisdiction is vested in Children's Court even when the offense is under the UAPA. [Para 40]

Special Legislation – Interpretation – NIA Act, 2008 and JJ Act, 2015 – Conflict between special laws – Later law prevails – JJ Act, 2015 being later, prevails over NIA Act, 2008 for cases involving juveniles tried as adults. [Para 41]

Decision – Transfer of trial to NIA Special Court refused – Jurisdiction affirmed with Children's Court – Petition dismissed, interim order vacated. [Para 42]

Criminal Law - Regular Bail - Non-compliance with NDPS Act Procedures - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. - Allegation of possession and sale of 20,000 intoxicating tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride - Petitioner argues non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act - Held, total non-compliance with Section 42 is impermissible; delayed compliance acceptable with satisfactory explanation - Prima facie satisfaction recorded under Section 37 of NDPS Act that petitioner not guilty and unlikely to commit offence while on bail - Petitioner granted regular bail subject to conditions [Paras 1-18].

Non-compliance with Mandatory Provisions - Analysis - Held - Delayed compliance with Section 42 acceptable if satisfactorily explained; total non-compliance impermissible - Proper recording and communication of secret information required under Section 42 - Case law reviewed indicating bail can be granted if mandatory provisions not followed even for commercial quantity recoveries [Para 13, 14].

Decision - Grant of Regular Bail - Court orders release of petitioner on bail subject to satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, with conditions to ensure compliance and non-interference with prosecution evidence - Petitioner to appear before police station monthly until trial concludes - Non-compliance with bail conditions to result in potential cancellation of bail [Paras 15-18].

Criminal Revision Case - Maintainability - Interlocutory order - Order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Deposit of compensation/fine amount - Whether revision against such order maintainable - Held, the order passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The order does not determine the final rights of the parties and is merely a procedural matter - Non-passing of such order does not culminate the proceedings - Revision dismissed as not maintainable - However, liberty granted to approach the court under the inherent power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Criminal Revision Case - Maintainability - Interlocutory order - Order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Deposit of compensation/fine amount - Whether revision against such order maintainable - Held, the order passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The order does not determine the final rights of the parties and is merely a procedural matter - Non-passing of such order does not culminate the proceedings - Revision dismissed as not maintainable - However, liberty granted to approach the court under the inherent power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Criminal Revision Case - Maintainability - Interlocutory order - Order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Deposit of compensation/fine amount - Whether revision against such order maintainable - Held, the order passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The order does not determine the final rights of the parties and is merely a procedural matter - Non-passing of such order does not culminate the proceedings - Revision dismissed as not maintainable - However, liberty granted to approach the court under the inherent power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Criminal Revision Case - Maintainability - Interlocutory order - Order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Deposit of compensation/fine amount - Whether revision against such order maintainable - Held, the order passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The order does not determine the final rights of the parties and is merely a procedural matter - Non-passing of such order does not culminate the proceedings - Revision dismissed as not maintainable - However, liberty granted to approach the court under the inherent power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Criminal Revision Case - Maintainability - Interlocutory order - Order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Deposit of compensation/fine amount - Whether revision against such order maintainable - Held, the order passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The order does not determine the final rights of the parties and is merely a procedural matter - Non-passing of such order does not culminate the proceedings - Revision dismissed as not maintainable - However, liberty granted to approach the court under the inherent power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Custody of Minor - Mother's Right – Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 – Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Custody of minor girl child aged less than 5 years – Petitioner-mother sought custody from father and grandparents – Held, mother's love and care indispensable for healthy growth – Grandparents unable to provide equivalent maternal care – Child’s welfare best served with mother – Custody granted to petitioner-mother. [Paras 1-18]

Child Welfare and Best Interests – Analysis – Maternal care crucial for child’s development, particularly under 5 years – Father's statement of child’s reluctance to go with mother insignificant for child’s best interests – Grandparents’ bond due to prolonged stay but cannot substitute maternal care – Custody aligned with statutory preference under Section 6 for mother of minor under 5 years. [Paras 10-18]

Judicial Review and Habeas Corpus – Maintainability – Writ of Habeas Corpus maintainable where civil court remedies ineffective or unavailable – Detention by parent or others deemed illegal or detrimental to child’s welfare – Habeas Corpus appropriate for custody matters in exceptional cases, emphasizing child’s welfare over procedural formalities. [Paras 16-17]

Decision – Custody to Mother – Habeas Corpus petition allowed – Custody of minor girl child granted to petitioner-mother – Orders for child’s production and handover to petitioner enforced. [Paras 18]

Criminal Procedure – Non-Bailable Warrants – Proclamation of Offender – Petition to quash warrants and proclamation – Criminal Appeal against order declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender – Held, Petitioner, despite being aware of the proceedings and warrants, failed to appear before the trial court – Justification provided for issuance of non-bailable warrants and proclamation as offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – No procedural irregularity or prejudice against petitioner found – Petition dismissed.

Criminal Law – Influence and Abuse of Power – Analysis – Held, accused, being an influential political figure, exercised undue influence to evade judicial proceedings – Police authorities' reluctance and perceived threats from the petitioner’s supporters noted – Held, such influence and evasion tactics do not entitle the petitioner to any judicial indulgence – Petitioner's argument of availing remedies insufficient to quash the proceedings.

Decision – Quashing of Non-Bailable Warrants and Proclamation – Petition dismissed – Court confirms validity of non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. – No infirmity found in the trial court’s actions – Observations confined to the decision on procedural grounds without delving into the merits of the accusations.

Criminal Law – Rape – Conviction and Sentence – Appeal against the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC for sexually assaulting his minor daughter. Held, the prosecutrix's testimony, supported by medical evidence and other witnesses, is reliable and cogent. The delay in lodging the FIR does not invalidate the complaint, given societal reluctance to report such crimes. The appellant’s conviction and life sentence upheld. [Paras 11-27]

Testimony of Victim – Reliability – The prosecutrix's consistent and detailed account of her father's sexual assaults, corroborated by medical evidence and her friend's mother, is credible. The lack of physical injuries or seminal traces does not negate rape, as minimal penetration suffices for conviction. [Paras 11-22]

Delay in FIR – Societal Attitudes – The delay in reporting the crime is understandable due to societal stigma and the victim's young age. This does not undermine the prosecutrix's credibility. [Para 25]

Sentencing – No Leniency for Sexual Offences Against Children – The appellant's actions as a father and protector justify a severe sentence. The life imprisonment sentence is appropriate and serves as a deterrent for such grave offences. [Paras 28-30]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant's conviction and life sentence are affirmed, with no grounds for leniency or reversal. [Para 31]

Condonation of Delay - Application for condonation of delay of 215 days in re-filing the appeal - Delay condoned. [Para 2,5]

Ancestral Property - Validity of Will - Plaintiffs claiming suit properties to be ancestral and seeking a declaration of their rights - Defendant setting up a will excluding plaintiffs - Will duly proved and accepted by lower courts - Exclusion of natural heirs not a suspicious circumstance - Deprivation of natural heirs a common feature of wills - Plaintiffs failing to establish ancestral nature of suit properties - Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld - Appeal dismissed. [Para 15-20]