Service Law - Juvenile Justice Act – Applicability to Recruitment – Suppression of Criminal Case – Petitioner, a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence, did not disclose a pending criminal case in his attestation form when joining SSB – Termination of service on this basis held unsustainable – Juveniles are protected from disqualification under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Omission to disclose such information runs contrary to the spirit and intent of the JJ Act – Held: Petitioner’s termination violated statutory safeguards provided to juveniles, and such termination is unsustainable [Paras 30-38].

Verification of Antecedents – Employment in Disciplined Force – While antecedent verification is important for employment in armed forces, employers must consider legal safeguards for juveniles – Police disclosure of information related to a juvenile's case violates confidentiality under the JJ Act – Such disclosures cannot form the basis for termination of service [Paras 32-39].

Juvenile Justice Act – No Stigma or Disqualification for Juvenile Offenders – Sections 19 and 21 of the JJ Act, 2000 ensure that juveniles in conflict with law are not subjected to stigma or disqualification even after conviction – The petitioner, as a juvenile, was not obligated to disclose pending proceedings – Employer’s action disregarded the protective legislative intent of the JJ Act [Paras 34-38].

Termination of Service – False Information in Attestation Form – The petitioner’s omission to disclose pending criminal proceedings due to his juvenile status does not amount to suppression or false declaration – Reliance on Commissioner of Police vs. Sandeep Kumar and Mukesh Yadav vs. Union of India underscores the principle that minor indiscretions of youth or omissions should not result in disqualification or stigma for life – Held: Termination unjustified [Paras 40-43].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned orders dated 27/09/2017 and 15/12/2014 terminating the petitioner’s service were quashed. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner within 12 weeks, with all consequential benefits except back wages. [Paras 45-46]
 

Criminal Procedure - Protest Petition Against Final Report – Magistrate’s Discretion – Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. – No Error in Accepting Closure Report – A magistrate has four options when considering a final report: (i) accept and drop proceedings, (ii) take cognizance and issue process, (iii) order further investigation, or (iv) treat the protest petition as a complaint – Here, the magistrate exercised discretion in accepting the closure report based on the victim’s Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, where she exonerated the accused – No illegality found in the decision [Paras 14-15].

Evidentiary Value of Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statement – Higher Weight than Section 161 Cr.P.C. – A victim’s judicial statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. carries more evidentiary weight than her police-recorded Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement – The magistrate correctly placed reliance on the Section 164 statement, which was voluntarily recorded and corroborated by affidavits from the victim’s father and uncle – Subsequent protest petition claiming coercion in the Section 164 statement lacks credibility [Paras 17-18].

Rejection of Protest Petition – Change in Victim’s Stand – No Presumption Against Judicial Statement – The victim initially alleged abduction and rape in her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement but later, in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, stated that she had left home voluntarily – The magistrate was correct in not presuming that the judicial statement was given under coercion – Her refusal to undergo medical examination further weakened her claims – Held, the protest petition was rightly dismissed [Paras 19-20].

Final Report Acceptance – Remedy for Complainant – Filing of Private Complaint Not Barred – Even after acceptance of a final report, the complainant retains the right to file a private criminal complaint under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. – This ruling does not preclude such a course of action [Para 22].

Decision: The criminal revision is dismissed. The trial court’s order accepting the police’s closure report and rejecting the protest petition is upheld. The magistrate acted within legal bounds in relying on the victim’s Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and supporting affidavits. However, the complainant retains the right to file a private complaint under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. before the competent court if so advised.
 

Criminal Procedure – Maintainability of Petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for Registration of FIR – Petitioner sought registration of an FIR against judicial officers and advocates, alleging public property grabbing and corruption – Held: High Court should not entertain such petitions when alternate statutory remedies are available – The petitioner must first approach the police authorities under Sections 154(3) and 36 Cr.P.C. and if unsatisfied, can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Direct invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is impermissible [Paras 6-8].

Contempt of Court – Baseless Allegations Against Judicial Officers – Petitioner made scandalous and unfounded allegations against judicial officers, claiming cases were decided in favor of certain parties due to corruption – Court held that no litigant can be allowed to browbeat the judiciary – Making such reckless allegations undermines judicial integrity and amounts to contempt – Held: Petitioner warned against filing such petitions in the future [Paras 9-10].

Judicial Discipline – Role of High Court in Protecting Judicial Officers from Baseless Attacks – Court cited Ajay Kumar Pandey v. Unknown, (1998) AIR SC 3299 – Held that judiciary must be protected from frivolous attacks to maintain public trust in the rule of law – Threats or false complaints against judges in response to unfavorable orders amount to interference in the administration of justice [Paras 9-10].

Abuse of Process of Law – Frivolous and Sensational Allegations Without Evidence – Petitioner alleged that advocates and judicial officers colluded to grab land and manipulate cases, but failed to provide any specific details or evidence – Court held that such sensationalized accusations were aimed at scandalizing the judiciary – Imposed costs of ₹25,000/- as a deterrent against misuse of judicial process [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Law – Suo Motu Contempt Powers of the High Court – Petitioner’s conduct warranted contempt proceedings, but the Court exercised judicial restraint – Held: Petitioner warned to conduct himself as a responsible legal professional – Future violations may lead to contempt action [Para 10].

Decision: Petition dismissed with costs of ₹25,000/- – Costs to be deposited in PGI Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh within two months – Failure to deposit may lead to recovery as arrears of land revenue – Court warned petitioner against filing frivolous petitions in the future.
 

False Information to Authorities – Section 58(2) of the NDPS Act – Disproportionality in Sentencing – Petitioner accused of providing false information to authorities, leading to the arrest of an innocent woman (Sheela Sunny) under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act – Held: False implication in NDPS cases can have devastating consequences; penalties for such false accusations must be proportionate to the severity of harm caused – Registry directed to forward a copy of this order to the Union of India to consider legislative changes ensuring harsher penalties for such offenses [Paras 2-3, 10-11].

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation – Seriousness of Allegations – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that only a bailable offense under Section 58(2) NDPS Act was applicable – Held: The allegations suggest a larger conspiracy, requiring thorough investigation, including custodial interrogation – The gravity of the alleged act precludes the grant of anticipatory bail – Application dismissed [Paras 9-12, 14-16].

Investigation into Conspiracy – Role of Informants – Safeguards Needed – Allegations that the petitioner conspired to falsely implicate an innocent woman in an NDPS case for personal motives – Held: Investigating Officer directed to probe the wider conspiracy, including the petitioner’s role and his connection to the individuals involved – State Police Chief directed to form a special investigation team to complete the investigation within three months [Paras 14-17].

Delay in Chemical Analysis – Alleged Evaporation of LSD Stamps – Burden of Possession – Petitioner argued that the delay of 74 days in analyzing seized LSD stamps could have caused the substance to evaporate – Held: If proven, the petitioner and co-conspirators may also face charges under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act for possession and conspiracy – Investigation to consider all angles [Paras 15-16].

Judicial Observations on False Accusations – Need for Accountability – Court emphasized the destructive impact of false accusations on innocent individuals – Observed that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth comes to light – Urged legislative action to ensure stringent penalties and justice for victims of false implications [Paras 11, 17].

Decision: Anticipatory bail application dismissed. Petitioner directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 7 days. Investigating Officer authorized to take coercive steps in case of non-surrender. State Police Chief directed to complete the investigation within 3 months. Jurisdictional Court instructed to dispose of the case within 4 months upon filing of the final report. Registry directed to forward a copy of this order to the State Police Chief, the Union of India, and the Jurisdictional Court [Paras 17-18].
 

Labour Law - Certified Standing Orders – Exercise of Power Under Clause 28 – Non-Compliance with Clause 27 – Impersonation Allegation – Removal Set Aside – Clause 28 allows removal without following regular departmental enquiry only in limited cases such as criminal conviction or when continuation of service is against security interests – In the present case, the management failed to conduct a departmental enquiry under Clause 27, and the inquiry report did not find the petitioner guilty of impersonation – Removal based on police verification report alone was unsustainable [Paras 29-31, 38, 44].

Industrial Tribunal – Scrutiny of Enquiry under Section 11-A of the ID Act – Failure of Tribunal – Tribunal upheld removal based on police report without scrutinizing the fairness and adequacy of the enquiry report – The Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11-A to reassess evidence and consider whether the punishment was appropriate – Held: Award of Tribunal is perverse and liable to be set aside [Paras 26, 39, 43, 51].

Impersonation Allegation – Evidence and Procedural Deficiencies – The management failed to provide evidence or conduct a proper enquiry proving that the petitioner impersonated Rohini Deshwalin, wife of Kali Deshwali – The complainant did not testify, and conflicting evidence (Form-B records, service excerpts) left the issue of impersonation unresolved – Held: The removal order was passed without proper basis and in violation of principles of natural justice [Paras 33, 35, 38-41].

Natural Justice – Removal Without Opportunity to Defend – Police verification report, relied upon to remove the petitioner, was obtained without giving her an opportunity to respond or cross-examine witnesses – Such removal is contrary to principles of natural justice and amounts to procedural impropriety [Paras 41, 45].

Back Wages – Limited Relief Due to Superannuation – Petitioner attained superannuation during the pendency of proceedings – Considering the unblemished service record prior to removal and procedural violations by the management, the Court granted 50% back wages from the date of reference to the Tribunal until superannuation, with all consequential benefits [Paras 52-53].

Decision: Writ petition allowed. Impugned award dated 30/08/2012 of the Industrial Tribunal set aside. Order of removal dated 18/03/2000 quashed. Petitioner entitled to 50% back wages from 19/09/2001 (reference date) until 10/01/2009 (date of superannuation) with all consequential benefits.
 

Civil Writ - Village Panchayats – No-Confidence Motion – Protection Under Proviso (4) to Section 35(2) – Whether Applicable to Sarpanch as a Post or to an Individual – Petitioner challenged the no-confidence motion initiated within two years of her election as Sarpanch, arguing that the statutory protection is personal and applies to all Sarpanches irrespective of their sequence in office – Respondents argued that immunity applies to the post and not the individual, and the term "date of election" refers to the election of the first Sarpanch of the term – Held: The immunity provided under Proviso (4) is specific to the individual Sarpanch elected during the tenure of the Village Panchayat and not limited to the first Sarpanch – Motion quashed [Paras 7-16].

Statutory Interpretation – Literal Rule vs. Purposive Interpretation – Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act – Court relied on the literal and plain meaning of Proviso (4) to Section 35(2), emphasizing that the phrase "date of election of Sarpanch" applies to each elected Sarpanch and not exclusively to the first Sarpanch of the Panchayat term – Held: Literal interpretation aligns with the statute’s objective of ensuring stable governance and smooth functioning of Village Panchayats – Judgment in Charushila Bira Shriram disapproved [Paras 8-16].

Governance and Stability – Protection from No-Confidence Motions – Purpose of the two-year protection under Proviso (4) to Section 35(2) is to ensure administrative stability and effective governance – Recognizing the immunity as person-specific reinforces this objective and avoids disrupting governance due to frequent changes in leadership – Court affirmed this reasoning to quash the impugned notice [Paras 15-16].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 11/12/2024 convening the no-confidence motion was quashed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs [Paras 17-19].

Civil Law - Res Judicata – Subsequent Application in the Same Proceedings – Bar under General Principles – Respondents filed a second application for issuance of a commission under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC after an earlier application on similar grounds had been rejected by the trial court – Held: The principle of res judicata applies to interlocutory orders at different stages of the same proceeding – Trial court, having rejected the earlier application with specific findings, was precluded from allowing the subsequent application – Impugned order quashed [Paras 7-9, 26-27].

Handwriting Expert – When Necessary – Role of Direct Witnesses – The trial court erred in issuing a commission to examine disputed signatures despite earlier rejecting a similar application on the ground that direct witnesses to the agreement to sell were available – Held: As attesting witnesses and the scribe of the agreement were available and already examined, referring the document for scientific investigation was unnecessary – Trial court's earlier rejection attained finality and could not be revisited [Paras 14-15, 23-26].

Finality of Orders – Binding Effect on Trial Court – Reiteration of Supreme Court Principles – Trial court violated established principles of finality by entertaining a second application seeking identical relief – Held: An earlier interlocutory order, not challenged or appealed, operates as res judicata and prevents re-litigation of the same issue – Reliance placed on Barkat Ali v. Badri Narain, 2008 SC 168, and Satyadhyan Ghoshal v. Deorjin Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941 [Paras 17-19, 26].

Judicial Duty – Necessity of Analyzing Citations and Evidence – Trial court failed to consider relevant precedents cited by the petitioner, which demonstrated that the second application was barred by res judicata – Held: A trial court must analyze citations relied upon by parties and apply them to the facts of the case – Failure to do so renders the order unsustainable [Paras 20, 26].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 26/08/2024 quashed and set aside – Second application for issuance of a commission under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC barred by res judicata – No costs [Paras 26-27].
 

Senior Citizens’ Rights – Eviction of Permissive Occupants – Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Son-in-law of the deceased daughter sought to claim residence in the house owned by his father-in-law – Contended that he contributed towards construction and had adverse possession – Held: The appellant was a permissive occupant with no legal right over the property – Senior citizens have the right to reclaim possession for their welfare [Paras 2-6].

Interpretation of "Children" and "Relative" Under the Act of 2007 – Appellant argued that he should not be covered under the definition of "Children" or "Relative" under Sections 2(a) and 2(g) – High Court held that the definitions are not exhaustive and if the house was given to the deceased daughter and the appellant was living there by virtue of marriage, he could be considered under the broader meaning of the term – Held: The appellant had a moral duty to maintain the senior citizen but no legal right to occupy the property [Paras 7-9].

No Adverse Possession Established – Bank Transactions Do Not Confer Ownership Rights – Appellant claimed to have transferred ₹1,00,000 to respondent No.3’s account as proof of investment in the property – Court held that mere bank transactions do not establish ownership or adverse possession – No agreement or title document submitted to prove that the property was purchased on his behalf [Paras 6-8].

Power of Tribunal to Order Eviction Under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 – The Tribunal can declare property transfers void if they adversely affect the senior citizen – Court relied on Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2 and held that the Tribunal has the power to order eviction if it ensures the protection and welfare of the senior citizen – Held: Retired senior citizens without regular pension must be allowed to reclaim possession for financial security and peaceful living [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Precedent – Applicability of Supreme Court Rulings – Appellant relied on Sudesh Chhikara v. Ramti Devi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1684, arguing that absence of a condition for maintenance in a transfer deed prevents cancellation – Held: The reliance was misplaced as no transfer deed existed in the present case – Tribunal’s eviction order upheld [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Eviction order upheld – Appellant directed to vacate the premises within 30 days, failing which the SHO concerned is directed to enforce eviction and hand over possession to respondent No.3.
 

Matrimonial Law - Wife’s Maintenance – Temporary Employment – Entitlement to Maintenance – The Family Court denied maintenance to the wife on the ground that she was employed on a temporary basis as a Data Entry Operator and earned ₹21,175/- per month – Held: Temporary employment and meagre earnings do not disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC – The wife is entitled to live at the same standard as in the matrimonial home – Maintenance is a measure of social justice, and insufficient income cannot bar her claim – Finding of the Family Court set aside – Matter remitted to Family Court to determine quantum of maintenance [Paras 7–12, 18].

Elder Daughter’s Maintenance – Right Under Section 20(1) of HAMA – Maintenance for the elder daughter was denied as she had attained majority – Held: Under Section 20(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, an unmarried daughter, even after attaining majority, is entitled to maintenance until her marriage – No such plea was raised before the Family Court – Elder daughter may file a separate application for maintenance under Section 20(1) of HAMA – Finding of the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC upheld, but liberty granted to pursue claim under HAMA [Paras 13–16].

Life Insurance Policies – Direction to Hand Over Certificates Upheld – The Family Court directed the husband to hand over life insurance certificates (Exts. B2 to B4) standing in the name of the wife and elder daughter – Held: Certificates are in their name, and they are entitled to possession – No interference warranted with the Family Court’s direction [Para 17].

Husband’s Income and Duty to Maintain – Presumption of Capability to Earn – Husband claimed unemployment and inadequate income, citing LIC pension of ₹27,000/- – Held: An able-bodied husband is presumed capable of earning to maintain his family – Evidence showed husband previously worked in Merchant Navy and was earning high salaries – Onus to prove inability to maintain wife not discharged by the husband – Maintenance liability upheld [Paras 10, 11].
Decision: Wife’s maintenance: The finding of the Family Court that the wife is not entitled to maintenance is set aside. The Family Court shall determine the quantum of maintenance afresh.
Elder daughter’s maintenance: The finding of the Family Court that the elder daughter is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is upheld. However, the elder daughter is granted liberty to file a fresh application for maintenance under Section 20(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
The direction of the Family Court to hand over life insurance policy certificates (Exts. B2 to B4) to the wife and elder daughter is upheld.
The maintenance case is remitted to the Family Court to determine the quantum of maintenance for the wife. The parties shall appear before the Family Court on 18/02/2025. The Family Court is directed to dispose of the case within three months from the date of appearance of the parties.