Criminal Law - Quashing Criminal Proceedings – Scope of Section 354D IPC – Analysis of the stalking offense under Section 354D IPC revealed insufficient grounds as the accused’s actions did not imply intent to outrage the modesty of the respondent – Held that conflicts between the petitioner and respondent do not fall within the purview of stalking under Section 354D IPC [Paras 10-12].

Defamation & Obscenity – Application of Section 294(b) IPC – Examined the allegation that petitioner used offensive language at an airport incident outside India – Found significant delay in reporting the alleged incident; also noted lack of necessary Central Government sanction under Section 188 CrPC for prosecuting offenses outside India – Held: Section 294(b) not attracted [Paras 13-16].

Insult to Modesty – Section 509 IPC – Considered whether petitioner’s alleged derogatory statements on social media and phone calls constituted intent to insult the respondent’s modesty – Held that accusations did not meet the threshold for an offense under Section 509 IPC, as mere unpleasant remarks or accusations fall short of statutory requirements [Paras 17-18].

Non-cognizable Offenses – Relevance of Section 120(o), Kerala Police Act – Noted that Section 120(o) is non-cognizable, and with other charges quashed, prosecution could not proceed solely on this basis without requisite legal permission – Quashed the case entirely [Para 19].

Decision: The High Court quashed the proceedings in CC No. 1102 of 2020, holding that the evidence and accusations were insufficient to establish offenses under Sections 354D, 294(b), and 509 IPC, and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.
 

Labour Law - Employment Status of Canteen Workers – Contract Labour Regulation – Sham Contract Alleged – The Industrial Tribunal held that the canteen workers employed through a contractor were in fact employees of HAL, finding the contractual arrangement to be a sham due to HAL’s control over employment terms, wages, and work conditions. However, the High Court, interpreting Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act, ruled that this finding was beyond the Tribunal’s authority in the absence of a prohibition notification issued by the Central Government – Held: The Tribunal’s determination of HAL as the true employer was invalid [Paras 76, 112].

Authority and Jurisdiction – Appropriate Government Determination – HAL argued that the Central Government was the ‘appropriate government’ for its operations, thus rendering the Tribunal’s jurisdiction invalid. The Court, however, concluded that the jurisdiction lay with the State Tribunal, following a delegation of authority by the Central Government to the State Government under Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, as validated by notifications under Section 10(1)(d) – Held: The reference by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal was legally valid [Paras 40-42].

Back Wages – Entitlement of Retrenched Workers – Lack of Evidence of Alternative Employment – The Court assessed the entitlement of the retrenched canteen employees to back wages, applying the principle established in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013) 10 SCC 324. The Court held that, as HAL failed to establish that the terminated workers were gainfully employed elsewhere, they were entitled to full back wages from the date of termination – Held: Workers were entitled to back wages from the date of termination until reinstatement [Paras 138-140].

Decision: The writ petition by HAL was partially allowed. The Court set aside the Industrial Tribunal’s findings on the employment status of canteen workers as HAL employees while upholding the Tribunal’s order directing the payment of back wages to the retrenched employees.
 

Criminal Law – Proclamation Proceedings – Compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Proclamation Against Absconder – Procedural Requirements – Quashment of Proclamation – The petitioner challenged the proclamation order issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C., claiming it was not executed per mandatory requirements – It was argued that no public reading of the proclamation was conducted in a conspicuous place, nor was the proclamation served personally – Held: Non-compliance with Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C. renders the proclamation and subsequent orders illegal; proclamation quashed [Paras 2-9].

Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Mandatory Compliance – Personal Service and Public Reading – High Court highlighted the necessity for prior issuance of warrants and public reading of the proclamation in a visible place in the accused’s village or town as per Section 82 Cr.P.C. – In this case, only affixing of notices was done, without public reading or due diligence in personal service – Held: Non-fulfillment of these requirements invalidates the proclamation [Paras 6-8].

Bail – Allowance to Surrender and Conditional Bail Grant – Despite procedural lapses, the petitioner was instructed to surrender before the Trial Court within six weeks, with the Trial Court to consider bail upon surrender – Failure to comply would result in automatic dismissal of this petition [Para 10].

Decision:

The proclamation order dated 27.02.2024 is quashed. Petitioner allowed to surrender within six weeks and apply for bail. Non-compliance with the surrender directive will lead to automatic dismissal of this petition [Paras 9-11].

Eviction Suit – Nature of Possession – Usufructuary Mortgage vs. Lease Arrangement – The plaintiff filed for eviction and recovery of possession of agricultural land, claiming he allowed the defendant to cultivate the land temporarily under a lease-like arrangement, later terminated. The defendant argued a right to possession under an alleged usufructuary mortgage agreement. Held: Lower courts found no valid mortgage agreement, confirming the plaintiff's entitlement to recovery of possession. The High Court agreed, noting that the defendant’s claims were unsupported by documentary evidence, making eviction proper [Paras 6-7, 10].

Second Appeal – Scope of Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – The Court reiterated that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law, excluding review of factual findings by lower courts. Here, the appellant raised issues primarily factual in nature, involving interpretation of agreements and possession, without identifying any substantial question of law – Held: No substantial question of law arose, rendering the second appeal inadmissible [Paras 11-13].

Requirement for Pleading and Proof in Mortgage Claims – The defendant claimed rights under a possessory mortgage yet failed to produce evidence of a formal mortgage agreement. The Court held that in absence of documented mortgage terms, and given that the arrangement resembled a lease with a refundable deposit, the claim of usufructuary mortgage was legally unsustainable. The plaintiff’s clear ownership rights thus prevailed over the defendant's possession claim [Paras 14-16].

Decision – The second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, confirming the judgments of the trial and first appellate courts favoring the plaintiff's right to evict and regain possession. No costs were awarded.
 

Criminal Law – Right to Bail in Extended Detention – Application of Section 480(6) of BNSS – The petitioner was held in custody for over two years, with the trial progressing slowly due to procedural delays – Section 480(6) mandates release if trial for non-bailable offenses triable by a Magistrate is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for evidence – Held: Since only one prosecution witness out of 33 had been examined despite the lapse of statutory 60 days, petitioner is entitled to bail [Paras 5-8].

Right to Speedy Trial – Extended Custody and Bail Entitlement under BNSS – Petitioner’s trial stalled with minimal progress due to procedural delays – Court emphasized the statutory protection against prolonged detention under BNSS, affirming that extended custody without trial progress infringes on rights of the accused – Held: Bail granted to prevent indefinite detention, with requirements for bond and surety [Paras 9-11].

Decision: The second bail application is allowed. The accused-petitioner is granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and two sureties of ₹50,000 each, subject to conditions of appearance at all court hearings [Paras 12-14].

Bail Application – Principle of Bail as a Rule, Jail as an Exception – The Court reiterated the principle that bail should be the norm and jail the exception, especially when an accused has been in prolonged custody. The petitioner has been detained since September 2020, and given the stage of the trial and lack of criminal antecedents, extended custody was deemed unwarranted [Paras 40-45].

Consideration of Parity in Bail – The petitioner claimed parity as a ground for bail, highlighting that 20 out of 28 co-accused in the same incident had already been granted bail, including others declared proclaimed offenders. The Court found this an important factor supporting the petitioner’s release on bail [Paras 50-55].

Assessment of Prima Facie Case for Bail – Without delving into the merits, the Court assessed whether continuous detention served any further purpose, finding that prolonged custody with slow trial progress undermines the petitioner’s right to liberty under Article 21. The Court noted that the petitioner’s alleged presence during the riot, evidenced by CCTV footage, was a matter for trial and did not preclude bail at this stage [Paras 30-35, 47].

Conditions Imposed for Bail – The petitioner was directed to be released on bail, with conditions including surrendering his passport, reporting regularly to the Investigating Officer, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence, contacting witnesses, and changing address without notification – Held: The petitioner to be released on regular bail on conditions designed to mitigate risk of flight and interference with the investigation [Paras 56-60].

Decision – The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions including a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety, periodic reporting, and restrictions on travel and communication with witnesses.
 

Income Tax – Notice under Section 148 – Requirement for Effective Opportunity of Hearing – Section 148A of the Income Tax Act – Adequate Opportunity Not Provided - The petitioner challenged the issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, alleging that he was not given sufficient time to respond to the show-cause notice under Section 148A(b) – Held: The respondent authority failed to provide an effective opportunity for the petitioner to present his case by proceeding prematurely and treating the petitioner’s adjournment request as a reply – Court found the lack of adherence to procedural requirements under Section 148A(b) rendered the order unsustainable [Paras 5-6].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ Petition – No Alternative Efficacious Remedy Available - The respondent argued for dismissal of the writ petition on the grounds that the petitioner has recourse through statutory appeal procedures – Held: Since the order under Section 148A(d) is not appealable, the petitioner had no alternative efficacious remedy, justifying the maintainability of the writ petition [Para 6].

Procedural Safeguards in Reassessment Proceedings – Requirement for Minimum Notice Period – Section 148A(b) of Income Tax Act mandates that the assessing authority should provide a minimum of 7 days and a maximum of 30 days for the assessee to respond to a notice – Court held that issuing the final order prior to the expiration of the permissible response period undermined procedural fairness and the petitioner’s right to defend – Order set aside on procedural grounds and matter remitted for fresh consideration [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Order Set Aside – The court set aside the impugned order dated 05.04.2024, citing failure to grant effective opportunity of hearing – Case remitted to the Income Tax authority to reconsider the show cause notice under Section 148A(d) after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of response – Writ petition disposed of [Paras 7-8].
 

Juvenile Justice – Bail for Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) – Presumption of Release – The petitioner, a juvenile, sought bail after denial by both the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and the appellate court, despite the Juvenile Justice Act’s reformative stance – The High Court reiterated that, under Section 12 of the J.J. Act, 2015, bail is the rule and refusal an exception, particularly where releasing the CICL does not risk moral, psychological, or physical danger to the child – Held: Bail granted, as no clear evidence suggested the CICL’s release would lead to negative influences, and family members undertook responsibility for his care [Paras 10-14, 21-24].

Interpretation of Section 12, Juvenile Justice Act – Grounds for Bail Refusal – The Juvenile Justice Act mandates that a CICL may be denied bail only if there are reasonable grounds to believe release would (i) lead to association with known criminals, (ii) expose the juvenile to harm, or (iii) defeat the ends of justice – Held: The appellate court’s reliance on speculative risk factors without concrete evidence did not meet these criteria, and thus, bail denial was improper [Paras 17-18, 25-26].

Principle of Juvenile Justice – Reformative and Rehabilitative Focus – The Act emphasizes the reformative approach, prioritizing the CICL’s well-being over punitive measures. The Court highlighted that, in the absence of evidence of past criminal influence or risks to the CICL’s welfare, continued detention contradicted the Act’s objectives – Held: Bail for juveniles is a statutory right, aligned with reformative principles unless substantive reasons for detention are provided [Paras 22-23, 27].

Decision – The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. Orders from the JJB and the appellate court denying bail are set aside. The petitioner is granted bail subject to conditions, including a bail bond and oversight by responsible family members.
 

Service Law – Appointment in Police Force – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Eligibility for Appointment – The petitioner challenged the rejection of his appointment to the Delhi Police due to past involvement in a criminal case from which he was acquitted – He was provisionally selected for the post of Sub-Inspector but his candidature was cancelled by the Screening Committee based on his antecedents, which they deemed unsuitable for the disciplined police force – The petitioner argued that the acquittal was based on lack of credible evidence against him – Held: The acquittal was determined to be "clean" and not based on benefit of doubt or technicality, and thus, the rejection of his candidature on these grounds was deemed unsustainable – The court directed the Delhi Police to appoint the petitioner to the post with retrospective effect but without back wages [Paras 2-27].

Criminal Law – Standing Order 398/2018 – Assessment of Acquittal – Standing Order 398/2018 provides guidelines for assessing the suitability of candidates involved in criminal cases for police service – The order distinguishes "honourable acquittals" from acquittals based on benefit of doubt or witness hostility – Held: An acquittal, free from any suspicion or implication of criminal involvement, mandates that the candidate should not face further disqualification for police service solely based on the prior allegation [Paras 17-22].

Judicial Review – Screening Committee's Decision – Standards for Intervention – The court acknowledged that while judicial review of a Screening Committee's decision is generally limited, it is warranted when the committee's conclusions are inconsistent with the trial court's findings – The Screening Committee in this case was found to have disregarded the trial court's ruling and failed to recognize the petitioner's acquittal as "clean" – Held: The committee's decision was deemed perverse and based on an erroneous interpretation of the trial court's findings, justifying judicial intervention to restore fairness in the recruitment process [Paras 25-27].

Decision – The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Delhi Police to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector with retrospective effect from the date of his provisional appointment but without back wages. The petitioner shall join the training program as per the Delhi Police’s guidelines.