Civil Law – Conditional Leave to Defend – Non-Compliance with Court Condition – Appeal Dismissed – Respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,18,876/- for construction of a drug store at Chief Animal Husbandry Office, Shopian – Appellants, as defendants, were granted conditional leave by the Trial Court to defend the suit, on the condition that they deposit 10% of the amount in question – Appellants failed to comply with the condition – As a result, the Trial Court passed judgment and decree in favor of the respondent on 25th April 2023 – Appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree [Paras 1-3].

Conditional Leave to Defend – Discretion of the Court – Appellants argued that the Trial Court, having acknowledged triable issues, should not have imposed a condition for leave to defend – Appellants contended that the judgment and decree should not have been passed based on their non-fulfillment of the condition – Appellants did not challenge the conditional leave order of 28th December 2022, which thereby attained finality [Paras 5-6].

Plaintiff's Stand – Non-Compliance Justified Judgment – Respondent’s counsel argued that the judgment was legally justified due to appellants' failure to comply with the conditional leave order – The conditional leave order, which was not challenged, became final, and the appellants could not dispute its validity during the appeal against the judgment and decree [Paras 6-7].

Order 37 CPC – Expeditious Disposal – Underlying policy of Order 37 CPC is expeditious disposal of suits involving commercial matters – Order 37 Rule 3(5) allows the court discretion to grant leave to defend either unconditionally or on terms, which was exercised by the Trial Court in this case – Reference made to Mechelec Engineers and Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corporation (1976) 4 SCC 687 outlining the principles for granting leave to defend, including conditions for deposit [Paras 7-9].

Law Governing Non-Compliance – Finality of Conditional Leave Order – Trial Court passed the impugned judgment under Rule 3(6) of Order 37 CPC, which allows for judgment if the defendant fails to comply with the conditions of the leave – Since the appellants did not fulfill the condition nor challenge the leave order, the Trial Court was justified in passing the decree – The conditional leave order had become final and could not be challenged in the present appeal [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The appeal lacked merit as the Trial Court's judgment was in accordance with law – Appellants’ failure to comply with the conditional leave order warranted dismissal of the appeal – Judgment and decree upheld [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court upheld.

Live-In Relationship – Domestic Violence – Maintenance Awarded – The applicant challenged the award of maintenance granted to respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 (a child) under the DV Act – Supreme Court held: The relationship between the applicant and respondent No. 1 fell within the definition of "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act, as they lived together and a child was born from their relationship – The courts below were correct in awarding maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 2,000 per month to respondent No. 2 [Paras 6-12].

Domestic Relationship – Knowledge of Prior Marriage – The applicant argued that respondent No. 1 was aware of his prior marriage, disqualifying her from claiming maintenance – Court rejected this argument, noting that respondent No. 1 had testified she was unaware of the applicant’s marital status – The courts below correctly held the relationship as one "in the nature of marriage," entitling her to relief under the DV Act.

Quantum of Maintenance – Reasonableness of Award – The applicant, a government employee earning Rs. 32,000 per month, was ordered to pay Rs. 6,000 total in maintenance – The Court found this award to be reasonable given the financial circumstances of both parties, and there was no perversity in the lower court’s decision .

Decision – Revision dismissed – The findings of the lower courts were upheld, including the award of maintenance and compensation under the Domestic Violence Act .

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide and Cruelty – Quashing of Complaint – Lack of Specific Instigating Act – Application under Section 482 of CrPC – Petition by Accused No. 4 to quash the complaint in S.C. No. 539/2021, involving charges under Sections 498(A), 306 read with 34 IPC, alleging that petitioner, along with her family, subjected the victim to cruelty which ultimately led to her suicide – Petitioner claimed innocence, stating she resided abroad and had no active role in instigating the victim – Court examined specific evidence and allegations for abetment, finding no conclusive instigating act attributable to petitioner – Held: General allegations of familial disapproval are insufficient to constitute abetment or cruelty without clear evidence of direct or proximate instigation; no prima facie case made out against petitioner – Quashing petition allowed [Paras 1, 5, 6, 12].

Abetment – Requirement for Specific Instigation Under Section 306 IPC – Mens Rea and Proximity – High Court analyzed criteria for abetment of suicide, emphasizing that instigation under Section 306 IPC requires intentional acts or words directly motivating the victim’s suicide – Reviewed relevant case law, noting that mere familial discontent or indirect acts without clear incitement do not satisfy the requirements for abetment – Held: Allegations failed to demonstrate proximate instigation or any mens rea on petitioner’s part; charges for abetment not sustainable at pre-trial stage [Paras 11, 13, 16, 20].

Decision: Petition allowed – Quashing granted for offenses under Sections 498(A), 306 read with Section 34 IPC – Proceedings against petitioner dismissed at pre-trial stage – Stay order vacated [Para 12].

Bail in NDPS Cases – Medical Grounds – Section 37 of NDPS Act – Bail Granted with Conditions - The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of BNSS, citing critical health conditions requiring care outside the prison setting, while the prosecution opposed the application due to the commercial quantity involved and alleged serious misconduct involving misuse of position by police personnel. Given the petitioner’s critical medical needs, the court held that stringent conditions on release could meet the justice requirements and balance the health needs – Bail was granted, overriding Section 37’s rigor in this context, with specific restrictive and rehabilitative conditions on the petitioner [Paras 9-12].

Stringent Bail Conditions – Ensuring Fair Trial and Prevention of Offense Repetition - The court imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to submit detailed identification records and barred possession of firearms, emphasizing the significance of rehabilitation and reform as part of bail considerations – These conditions reflect the judiciary's intent to mitigate risks of witness tampering and recurrence of offenses, balancing bail with public safety concerns [Paras 14-19].

Discretion in Bail for Medical Reasons – Role of Proportionality and Necessity - Emphasizing the necessity for proportionality in bail conditions, the court aligned with Supreme Court observations that bail restrictions should not infringe rights disproportionately – The petitioner was held eligible for bail on medical grounds, subject to compliance with conditions supporting public and individual safety [Para 19].

Decision – Bail Granted – Given the petitioner’s critical medical condition and satisfaction of initial Section 37 conditions, the court granted bail with stringent restrictions to safeguard public safety and ensure the petitioner’s compliance.

Labour Law - Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Minimum Wages Act vs. Industrial Disputes Act - The petitioner challenged the Labour Court’s direction to pay differential minimum wages to a workman engaged through a contractor, arguing the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to determine disputed wage claims. Held: The Minimum Wages Act provides an exclusive remedy under Section 20 for wage disputes, making the Labour Court’s order under Section 33-C(2) ultra vires [Paras 8-9].

Principal Employer Liability - Contract Labour - The Court held that the Labour Court erred in directing the principal employer to pay differential wages without recourse to the prescribed process under the Minimum Wages Act. The workman must approach authorities under the Minimum Wages Act for such claims [Paras 3-4].

Relief and Directions - The Court set aside the Labour Court’s order, granting liberty to the workman to seek remedies under the Minimum Wages Act, with guidance that time spent in proceedings before the Labour Court and High Court would be considered regarding limitation [Para 9].

Decision: The petitions are allowed, and the Labour Court's order is set aside. The respondent-workmen are directed to pursue remedies under the Minimum Wages Act.
 

Criminal Law - Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Jurisdiction of Magistrate at Post-Cognizance Stage – Complaint Upheld, Further Investigation Denied - The petitioner sought an order directing fresh investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. based on alleged mishandling of the original investigation by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) – Magistrate treated the protest petition as a complaint after taking cognizance under Section 200 Cr.P.C., rendering Section 156(3) application non-maintainable – Held: A Magistrate is precluded from ordering further police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. once cognizance has been taken, affirming the approach in Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and Devarapally Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy [Paras 11-12].

Civil vs. Criminal Nature of Dispute – SIT and Final Report Analysis – Civil Dispute Indicated - SIT’s closure report indicated that alleged financial irregularities, including unauthorized loan agreements and undervalued leases, were insufficient to establish criminal intent under IPC sections cited – Concluded that discrepancies primarily pointed to internal company affairs, characterizing the issue as a civil dispute rather than a cognizable offense – Court dismissed petition for fresh investigation [Paras 5-8].

Challenge to SIT’s Final Report – Assessment of Evidence – Deficient Justification for Reinvestigation - Petitioner argued that the SIT failed to investigate misappropriation of lease amounts and unsecured loans in detail – Court held that given the findings of the SIT, the allegations at most involved administrative discrepancies within company transactions without substantiation of criminal conduct – Judicial precedent requires substantial grounds for reopening investigation; no such grounds established [Paras 6-9].

Scope of Magistrate’s Discretion under Section 156(3) – Binding Nature of Precedent - Citing Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, Court reaffirmed the necessity for Magistrate’s judicious discretion in invoking Section 156(3), limited to pre-cognizance phase only – Confirmed that the Magistrate correctly declined to order fresh investigation once he had initiated proceedings on the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. [Paras 10-11].

Final Decision - The petition seeking quashing of SIT’s closure report and orders for further investigation was dismissed as non-maintainable due to the cognizance already taken and lack of substantive criminal findings by SIT.
 

Writ of Mandamus – Permission for Preparatory Arrangements for Public Festivities – The petitioners, devotees and members of Navajagran Public Durga Puja Samithi, sought permission to enter Bannappa Park Playground for preparatory work ahead of Durga Puja, scheduled from 09.10.2024 to 13.10.2024 – Held: The respondents had already granted permission for the Puja, and it was deemed essential for the petitioners to undertake necessary preparations such as erecting pandals, building a stage, and ensuring public safety prior to the event – The Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioners to perform preparatory work from 06.10.2024 onwards, while adhering to legal norms [Paras 6-12]​.

Public Interest – Religious Festivities and Civic Permissions – The Court emphasized the need for balancing public interest in religious festivities with civic responsibilities. Since the BBMP had no objections to the preparatory works, the petition was disposed of with appropriate directions [Paras 10-12]​.

Decision – Petition allowed – Respondents directed to permit the petitioners to carry out preparatory works for the Durga Puja from 06.10.2024 to 08.10.2024​.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Illegal Extraction of Minerals – The petitioner was charged under Sections 379, 411, and 414 of the IPC and under the Mines and Minerals Act for alleged illegal extraction of brick earth – Held: The FIR and the subsequent proceedings were quashed as the petitioner had paid all dues for royalty, land revenue, and cess as demanded by the authorities – The issuance of a ‘No Due Certificate’ demonstrated compliance with statutory requirements, rendering the charges baseless [Paras 7-12]​.

Abuse of Process of Law – Absence of Essential Ingredients for Theft – The Court found no prima facie case for theft or illegal extraction of minerals as there was no seizure of brick earth or minerals from the petitioner’s premises – The seizure of empty trucks and earth removers did not constitute evidence of theft or illegal mining – The continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 13-18]​.

Inherent Powers of Court – Quashing of Proceedings – The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, citing the principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal to quash the proceedings – The criminal case was instituted with a mala fide intent, and the ingredients of the offences were not made out [Paras 20-22]​.

Decision – Petition allowed – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed – Case disposed of​.

Anticipatory Bail – Delay in FIR Registration – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail after being accused of theft under Section 380 IPC. The Court observed that there was an inordinate delay in registering the FIR, which was explained by the de-facto complainant on the grounds that the petitioner’s mother had promised to return the stolen ATM card and money – Held: The delay did not affect the credibility of the FIR as the explanation was prima facie satisfactory [Paras 6-7]​.

Pre-Arrest Bail – Exceptional Circumstances Required – Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted only in exceptional cases where the applicant demonstrates clear misuse of the process of law – The petitioner’s custodial interrogation was deemed necessary for recovering the stolen items, and thus, anticipatory bail was denied [Paras 10-12]​.

Decision – Bail application dismissed – Custodial interrogation and recovery needed for proper investigation​.