Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Scope Expanded – The applicants filed for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, in connection with accusations under Sections 451, 394/34 of IPC – Held: The scope of anticipatory bail has been expanded compared to the earlier provision under Section 438 of the CrPC, 1973, removing guiding factors like the gravity of accusations and criminal antecedents, thus widening judicial discretion – The Court found no intention to commit the alleged offenses based on the facts and granted anticipatory bail on conditions of cooperation with the investigation and ensuring no interference with evidence [Paras 4-7].

Administrative Law – Correction in Educational Records – CBSE By-Laws – Petitioner requested corrections to reflect her biological mother’s name in her Class 10th certificate, which currently shows the name of her stepmother due to her father’s remarriage – Held: The correction was permitted, considering the petitioner’s fundamental right to be recognized by her true identity, especially when the biological mother had raised the petitioner since her secondary education [Paras 1, 10, 12, 19, 21, 22].

Fundamental Right – Identity and Dignity – Article 21 of the Constitution – Petitioner argued for recognition by her biological mother’s name in official documents, stating that the current misrepresentation caused emotional distress and hindered professional opportunities – Held: Right to identity and dignity under Article 21 is crucial, and the petitioner’s request to reflect her biological mother’s name is both reasonable and just [Paras 10, 12, 19, 21, 22].

Delay and Laches – Defense by CBSE – CBSE contended that the petitioner’s request was barred by delay, as the Class 10th certificate was issued in 2008, and the petition was filed in 2023 – Held: The petitioner's emotional and personal struggles justify condonation of delay, as rigid application of legal timelines would result in injustice [Paras 8, 11].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – The CBSE is directed to correct the petitioner’s name from ‘Shweta Sangwan’ to ‘Shweta’ and her mother’s name to ‘Smt. Santosh Kumari’ in her Class 10th certificate within one month – Petitioner's request to change her father’s name from ‘Sh. Dharampal Sangwan’ to ‘Sh. Dharampal’ was denied – The petition is disposed of accordingly [Paras 22-24].

Administrative Law – Correction in Educational Records – CBSE By-Laws – Petitioner requested corrections to reflect her biological mother’s name in her Class 10th certificate, which currently shows the name of her stepmother due to her father’s remarriage – Held: The correction was permitted, considering the petitioner’s fundamental right to be recognized by her true identity, especially when the biological mother had raised the petitioner since her secondary education [Paras 1, 10, 12, 19, 21, 22].

Fundamental Right – Identity and Dignity – Article 21 of the Constitution – Petitioner argued for recognition by her biological mother’s name in official documents, stating that the current misrepresentation caused emotional distress and hindered professional opportunities – Held: Right to identity and dignity under Article 21 is crucial, and the petitioner’s request to reflect her biological mother’s name is both reasonable and just [Paras 10, 12, 19, 21, 22].

Delay and Laches – Defense by CBSE – CBSE contended that the petitioner’s request was barred by delay, as the Class 10th certificate was issued in 2008, and the petition was filed in 2023 – Held: The petitioner's emotional and personal struggles justify condonation of delay, as rigid application of legal timelines would result in injustice [Paras 8, 11].

Decision:

Petition partly allowed – The CBSE is directed to correct the petitioner’s name from ‘Shweta Sangwan’ to ‘Shweta’ and her mother’s name to ‘Smt. Santosh Kumari’ in her Class 10th certificate within one month – Petitioner's request to change her father’s name from ‘Sh. Dharampal Sangwan’ to ‘Sh. Dharampal’ was denied – The petition is disposed of accordingly [Paras 22-24].

Service Law - ACP Scheme – Benefit of Past Service for Grant of 2nd ACP – Past Service Must Be Counted – The petitioner, a clerk, sought the 2nd ACP on completion of 9 years of service after being transferred from one Sessions Division to another – The Court held that the petitioner’s past service must be counted for the benefit of the ACP scheme since the rule restricting this benefit (Rule 4.8(b)) was introduced after the petitioner’s transfer, and cannot be applied retrospectively [Paras 7.2, 7.3].

Discrimination – Similarly Situated Employees Granted ACP Benefit – Petitioner Entitled to Equal Treatment – The Court found that other similarly situated employees were granted the benefit of ACP, but the petitioner was denied the same – This was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory, warranting relief [Paras 7.4, 7.6].

Precedent – Court Denies “Wrong Cannot Be Perpetuated” Argument – The respondents argued that a prior wrong decision could not be a precedent, but the Court held that the petitioner’s claim was lawful and justified based on prior service and existing rules [Para 7.5].

Decision: The petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to the petitioner by respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The impugned order dated 09.01.2020 is set aside, and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the 2nd ACP.
 

Labour Law – Criminal Law - Unfair Labour Practice – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Criminal Complaint Quashed – Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 25(T) and 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, alleging that the company engaged in unfair labour practices by coercing workmen to resign from the union and terminating five employees. The petitioners argued that the complaint was filed before the termination of the employees, and the proceedings were premature. Held: The criminal complaint was quashed as the termination was still pending adjudication before the Labour Court, and no conclusion of unfair labour practices could be drawn without prior adjudication [Paras 19-21].

Adjudication of Labour Disputes – Precondition for Criminal Action – The Court reaffirmed that the adjudication of termination disputes by a competent Labour Court is a necessary precondition for invoking criminal provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act. Without a final adjudication of the labour dispute, criminal proceedings are premature and an abuse of process [Paras 22-23].

Section 482 CrPC – Scope of Quashing – Premature Criminal Proceedings – The High Court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the criminal proceedings, emphasizing that allowing the trial to proceed when the underlying labour disputes were yet to be adjudicated would amount to an abuse of legal process [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Criminal proceedings quashed – The Court held that the complaint and summons issued by the Magistrate were premature as the underlying labour dispute regarding termination was still pending before the Labour Court. The continuation of the criminal proceedings was deemed an abuse of the process of law [Paras 26-28].
 

Bail Cancellation – Alleged Violation of Conditions – Matrimonial Dispute – The petitioner sought the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2, alleging that he had violated bail conditions by threatening her – Held: The alleged violation pertained to a separate incident for which an FIR was filed belatedly, and respondent No.2 had complied with the bail conditions post the Sessions Court's order – Petition dismissed [Paras 9-11].

Delayed FIR – Questionable Credibility – The FIR for the alleged threat by the respondent was lodged 25 days after the incident – The delay in filing the FIR raised doubts about the genuineness of the allegations – Held: The delay in filing the FIR undermined the credibility of the petitioner’s claim of threat [Para 9].

No Grounds for Bail Cancellation – Regular Compliance with Bail Conditions – Respondent No.2 had been regularly attending court and had not violated any conditions since the Sessions Court's previous order – Held: No valid grounds for cancellation of bail were made out – Petition dismissed [Paras 10-11].

Decision:   Petition for cancellation of bail dismissed – Respondent No.2 to continue on bail as per the existing conditions​.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Offence under Section 370(A) IPC – The petitioner, accused as a customer in a brothel case, sought quashing of the proceedings against him under Sections 370(3) and 370(A) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act – The Court observed that for Section 370(A) to apply, the customer must have knowledge that the victim was trafficked – Held: The proceedings for Section 370(A) IPC against the petitioner were upheld, as there was sufficient prima facie evidence – Petition partly allowed, quashing proceedings under Section 370(3) IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, but continuing prosecution under Section 370(A) IPC [Paras 8, 12, 13, 17].

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act – Sections 3 and 5 – Non-applicability to Customers – The Court noted that Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act are aimed at brothel keepers and those procuring women for prostitution, not customers – Held: The petitioner, being a customer, is not liable to be prosecuted under these sections – Proceedings quashed for these offences [Paras 10-12, 15].

Interpretation of Section 370(A) IPC – Customer’s Liability – The Court distinguished between the acts of trafficking and the role of customers – Held: The petitioner was found at the scene of the offence and could be prosecuted under Section 370(A)(2) IPC for engaging in sexual exploitation of trafficked persons – Petition dismissed in this regard [Paras 7, 14, 16].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Proceedings under Section 370(3) IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act quashed – Proceedings under Section 370(A) IPC to continue​.

Service Law - Social Forestry Workers – Claim for Permanency – Kalelkar Award – Writ Petitions by Social Forestry Division challenging the Industrial Court’s orders granting permanency to daily wage workers under the Kalelkar Award – Petitioners contended that workers were engaged seasonally and not entitled to permanency as no sanctioned posts existed – Held: Industrial Court erred in granting straightaway permanency; instead, the workers’ cases should be considered under government schemes for regularization of daily wage workers as per the Government Resolutions – Cases remitted for consideration of absorption under Government Resolutions from 1996 and 2012 [Paras 1-4, 22-25, 30].

Grant of Permanency – Industrial Court’s Power – Umadevi Case Law – Petitioners argued that as per the Constitution Bench ruling in Umadevi, workers cannot claim regularization without following due process, and the Industrial Court overstepped by granting permanency – Held: Industrial Court’s order for regularization of casual workers without sanctioned posts contravenes Umadevi principles – Court referred to Government schemes that provided for absorption of workers after 5 years of service, requiring re-evaluation under those schemes – Permissible to grant absorption as per applicable schemes, but not direct regularization [Paras 17-19, 21, 22, 29].**

Kalelkar Award – Scope and Application – CRTE Status vs. Permanency – The Industrial Court granted permanency by applying the Kalelkar Award, which requires five years of continuous service for CRTE status – Held: The Kalelkar Award confers CRTE status and does not guarantee permanent government posts – The workers should have been granted CRTE status and considered for regularization under existing schemes, but not outright permanency – Industrial Court order modified accordingly [Paras 10-12, 22-25].**

Regularization Schemes – Government Resolutions of 1996, 2012, and 2018 – Court observed that several Government Resolutions provide for the regularization of daily wage workers completing 5 years of service between 1994 and 2004 – Directed petitioners to re-evaluate workers’ claims for regularization based on these resolutions, without insisting on conditions like active service in 2012 for those terminated in 2002 – Court outlined the method for calculating service benefits, continuity, and retirement benefits for eligible workers [Paras 23-30].

Premature Termination – Impact of Interim Orders – Petitioners argued that the workers’ continued service was due to the status-quo order, thus should not count towards permanency – Held: Interim orders did not prevent petitioners from terminating workers’ services – Workers continued in service for over a decade, justifying consideration for regularization – Termination during pending complaints did not negate their right to claim benefits under the regularization schemes [Paras 14-15, 16].

Decision: Petitions partly allowed – Industrial Court’s direction for permanency set aside – Petitioners to consider workers for regularization under relevant Government Resolutions – Cases remitted for re-evaluation – Eligible workers to be absorbed and granted consequential benefits, including monetary benefits, retirement benefits, and continuity of service [Paras 30-31].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of Rape – Petitioners sought quashment of the FIR and charge sheet on the grounds that the prosecutrix is a consenting adult and the case has been amicably settled – Held: Offenses under Section 376 IPC (rape) are serious in nature and cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, as they have a profound impact on society – The court must be cautious when using its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, especially in cases of heinous crimes like rape [Paras 7-8, 16-17].

Compromise in Heinous Crimes – Non-Compoundable Offenses – Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that offenses such as rape cannot be compromised even if the parties have settled – Crimes like rape affect the dignity and sanctity of women, and the court emphasized that these offenses are not merely private matters but affect public interest as well – Held: The petition for quashing was dismissed, and the court underscored that compromise does not mitigate or nullify the charges in such cases [Paras 9-13, 15-16].

Decision:

Petition under Section 482 of CrPC dismissed – Criminal proceedings will continue, as offenses of rape cannot be quashed based on compromise between the parties, given their serious nature and societal impact [Para 17].