Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Scope of Court’s Discretion – Amendment Necessary for Proper Adjudication – The plaintiffs filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint to add a prayer for possession after alleging that the defendants constructed shops and rooms on the suit property during the pendency of the suit for injunction. The Court held that at the stage of allowing an amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the Court is not required to adjudicate on the correctness of the claims proposed to be added. The amendment was held necessary for determining the real controversy and to avoid multiplicity of litigation – Amendment upheld [Paras 5-7].

Effect of Amendment – No Prejudgment on Merits – Trial to Consider Evidence and Arguments – Allowing the amendment does not mean the Court has accepted the plaintiffs’ claims as true. The defendant’s rights remain protected, and they may file an amended written statement. The final determination will occur after considering the evidence during trial – No prejudice caused to defendants [Para 6].

Decision: Petition dismissed.

Service Law – Seniority List – Promotion – Writ petition challenging the revised seniority list dated 14.3.2022, which placed the petitioner at a lower rank and affected his promotion prospects – Petitioner contended that his service should be reckoned from his date of regularization in 1998, not from his initial appointment in 1997, which was on a consolidated pay during the training period – Held: The seniority list based on the petitioner's 1997 appointment is valid, as the training period is considered a prerequisite for regularization – No illegality found in the seniority list or subsequent promotion of private respondents – Petitioner's claim for seniority from 1998 is unsustainable [Paras 9-19].

Date of Appointment – Regularization – Training Period – Petitioner argued that his initial appointment in 1997 was adhoc and his regular service began in 1998 – Court observed that regularization involves a prior period of service, and the training period in 1997 was a prerequisite for regularization in 1998 – The initial appointment in 1997 cannot be disregarded for seniority purposes – Held: Seniority should be calculated from the date of initial appointment in 1997, not from regularization in 1998 [Paras 13-16].

Adhoc Appointment – Applicability of Apex Court Ruling – Petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rashi Mani Mishra v. State of U.P., which distinguished between adhoc and regular appointments – Court distinguished the facts, noting that the petitioner's 1997 appointment was not adhoc but part of a regular process leading to his regularization – The judgment cited by the petitioner is inapplicable [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No illegality in the seniority list prepared by the fifth respondent or the promotions granted to private respondents – No costs [Paras 20-21].
 

Criminal Procedure – Application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Prayer for Further Investigation – Alleged Death by Burn Injuries – Dismissal of Application Challenged – The petitioner sought further investigation into the death of his niece, alleging that her husband (the accused) made a video call to a relative instead of rescuing her while she was ablaze – Investigation was initially directed under Section 304B I.P.C., but the court found Section 304B inapplicable as the death occurred after seven years of marriage – The Investigating Officer did not include charges under Section 302 I.P.C. despite the petitioner’s requests – The Magistrate dismissed the petitioner’s application for further investigation – Held: The Court found that further investigation would not serve any fruitful purpose as the Investigating Officer was already permitted to continue investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and would file a supplementary charge sheet if necessary [Paras 1, 9]. 

Witness Statements – Conflicting Testimonies – Victim's Statement to Doctor Contradictory – The petitioner alleged that the accused’s conduct during the incident indicated his guilt, while the Investigating Officer relied on statements from doctors and witnesses suggesting the victim set herself ablaze due to marital discord – The attending doctor stated that the victim claimed to have set herself on fire, while other evidence suggested foul play – Held: Discrepancies in witness testimonies do not necessitate further investigation at this stage, but the trial court may consider invoking Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine witnesses if needed during trial [Paras 6, 7, 8]. 

Consideration of Section 302 I.P.C. during Trial – Although the investigating agency did not add Section 302 I.P.C. in the charge sheet, the trial court is expected to consider all charges, including Section 302 I.P.C., based on the evidence produced during the trial – Held: The trial court shall be at liberty to amend charges if relevant evidence of murder surfaces [Para 10]. 

Decision – Criminal revision application dismissed – Further investigation not required as the Investigating Officer was allowed to continue the investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – The trial court shall consider the applicability of Section 302 I.P.C. during the trial, and summon additional witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. if necessary [Paras 9, 10, 11]. 

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Application for Anticipatory Bail Post-Cancellation of Bail – Maintainability Challenged – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail after the addition of a graver offence (Section 376 I.P.C.) during investigation. The State challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioner should have either surrendered and sought regular bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. or filed a revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. after the bail was cancelled. Held: Once the accused participated in the proceedings, contested the cancellation, and suffered an adverse order, a subsequent application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The correct remedy would be to seek revision of the cancellation order [Paras 1, 2, 30, 31]. 

Cancellation of Bail – Addition of Graver Offence – Section 376 I.P.C. – The victim's complaint initially led to registration of a case under Sections 341, 417, 506, and 509 I.P.C. Subsequently, based on her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecution sought to add Section 376 I.P.C. The trial court cancelled the petitioner’s bail after adding this graver non-bailable section – Held: Addition of a graver offence post-grant of bail requires the accused to either surrender and seek bail for the newly added offence or challenge the cancellation in revision. Filing an anticipatory bail application post-cancellation is not permissible [Paras 13, 30, 31]. 

Anticipatory Bail – Liberal Interpretation – Article 21 of the Constitution – The petitioner argued that anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. must be interpreted liberally in light of Article 21 of the Constitution, as held in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab – Held: While anticipatory bail protects personal liberty, it cannot be used as a recourse after bail cancellation following a contested hearing [Paras 9, 10, 26]. 

Procedure Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Compliance with Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. – The Court emphasized that any application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must comply with the procedure under Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. The magistrate must ensure that the procedure is followed before directing investigation [Paras 7, 8]. 

Decision – The application for anticipatory bail is dismissed as not maintainable, as the petitioner had participated in the cancellation hearing and failed to seek anticipatory bail prior to the cancellation order. The petitioner is at liberty to seek other appropriate remedies in law [Paras 30, 31, 32]. 

Quashing of FIR – Civil Dispute Presented as Criminal Case – Sections 406 and 420 IPC – Petitioner alleged that the FIR registered by the complainant, claiming non-repayment of ₹70,00,000 lent as a loan, is a civil dispute being framed as a criminal offence – Petitioner contended that the FIR does not disclose fraudulent intent or breach of trust and that the complaint is aimed at recovering a time-barred loan through criminal means – Court held: The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, concerning non-repayment of a loan amount, which does not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating without fraudulent inducement – FIR quashed [Paras 4-6, 14-18].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 406 IPC – No Entrustment of Money – The law distinguishes between simple advancement of money and entrustment of money – Court held: In a loan transaction, there is no "entrustment" of money; therefore, no criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC is made out in the absence of such entrustment, even if the petitioner fails to repay the loan [Para 10-11].

Cheating – Section 420 IPC – No Fraudulent Inducement – For an offence under Section 420 IPC, fraudulent inducement and mens rea must be present from the beginning of the transaction – Court held: The mere inability of the petitioner to repay the loan amount does not give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent intent can be demonstrated from the outset – No such fraudulent intent was evident in this case [Para 12-13].

Decision: FIR quashed – The court found that the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings initiated were a misuse of the legal process, as the matter was purely civil in nature – Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 76/2018, along with all proceedings arising therefrom, is quashed [Paras 18-19].
 

Bail - Murder – Mens Rea and Use of Safety Shoes as a Weapon – Section 302 IPC – Bail Denied - Petitioner accused of kicking the deceased, Hiralal, with safety shoes during a wedding altercation after a sudden provocation – Petitioner argued that the cause of death was unrelated to the kicks, citing the postmortem report and lack of external injuries – Court held: Kicking the deceased with safety shoes, a hard object capable of causing significant internal damage, particularly in the stomach and private parts, could demonstrate intent to cause serious injury or death – The use of safety shoes as a weapon increases the potential for fatal injuries, and the petitioner’s actions prima facie meet the ingredients of murder [Paras 7-10].

Causation and Internal Injuries – Septicemic Shock – Postmortem Report – The defense contended that the cause of death was "septicemic shock" due to surgical wounds and not from the kicks inflicted by the petitioner – Court held: Although the postmortem indicated septicemic shock, the kicks delivered to the deceased’s abdomen and private parts while wearing safety shoes were severe enough to contribute to internal injuries that may have led to the death – The petitioner’s actions fulfill the mens rea requirement for murder under Section 302 IPC [Para 4-5, 10].

Pending Evidence – Bail Denied Due to Pending Testimonies – Despite the defense presenting the testimony of the doctor who conducted the postmortem, several key eyewitness statements, including those of Mangi and Maku Ninama, were still pending – Court held: Since the trial is ongoing and crucial evidence is yet to be presented, bail cannot be granted at this stage [Para 8, 11].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – The court concluded that, based on the material available and the seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner is not entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. However, the observations made are solely for the purpose of deciding the bail application and shall not affect the merits of the case [Para 13].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120(B)(2) IPC – Arms Seizure – Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act – Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Recovery Beyond Doubt – Conviction Set Aside – The petitioner was convicted under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and Section 120(B)(2) of IPC for illegal possession of firearms based on evidence of a confessional statement and the recovery of arms from a box allegedly belonging to him. However, the prosecution failed to seize the box or prove its ownership, and key witnesses provided contradictory statements about the condition and possession of the box – Held: Conviction set aside due to lack of proper evidence and procedural infirmities [Paras 30-37].

Non-Seizure of Box – Material Evidence Not Properly Connected to the Accused – Infirmity in Prosecution Case – The prosecution failed to seize the box from which the arms were allegedly recovered, and witnesses admitted that the box was not locked or identified as belonging to the petitioner at the time of recovery. The box produced in court later had no conclusive identifiers, which led to a serious doubt about the connection between the petitioner and the recovered arms – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 34-36].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Miscarriage of Justice – Conviction Overturned – The trial court and appellate court failed to adequately consider the inconsistencies and procedural shortcomings in the case, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The revisional court exercised its jurisdiction to correct these errors, resulting in the petitioner’s acquittal – Held: Conviction quashed, and petitioner acquitted [Paras 38-39].

Decision – Petition allowed – The conviction and sentence of the petitioner were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted of all charges due to insufficient evidence and improper seizure procedures. The petitioner’s bail bonds were discharged, and the trial court's records were directed to be returned [Paras 39-41].

Service Law – Regularization of Casual Employment – Long-term Employment as Circle Organizers (COVDO) – Petitioners’ Discharge Set Aside – The petitioners were employed as COVDOs on a temporary basis in 1993 and 1996 and served for many years. They were repeatedly terminated, reinstated, and finally discharged. The petitioners challenged their discharge, seeking regularization in accordance with the judgment in Uma Devi – Held: The petitioners' discharge was illegal, and they should be reinstated as COVDOs. The State is directed to consider regularizing their services within three months [Paras 28-29].

Termination Without Notice – Violation of Natural Justice – Discharge Orders Quashed – The court noted that the petitioners were discharged without any prior notice and without providing reasons for their termination. This was found to be a violation of the principles of natural justice – Held: The discharge orders dated 07.02.2015 and subsequent orders were set aside due to lack of notice and justification for termination [Paras 24-25].

Distinction Between Village Defense Organization (VDO) and Home Guards – Wrongful Discharge as Home Guards – The court observed that the petitioners were employed as COVDOs under the Village Defense Organization, not as Home Guards, and their wrongful classification and discharge as Home Guards by the authorities was improper – Held: Petitioners were never Home Guards but COVDOs, and should be reinstated in their correct positions [Paras 23, 28].

Regularization of Temporary Employees – Applicability of Uma Devi Judgment – Petitioners Eligible for Regularization – The court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi, holding that employees who had been in long-term service and had been working on sanctioned posts could not be denied regularization. The petitioners, having served for over 20 years, were eligible for consideration under the guidelines laid down in Uma Devi – Held: The authorities must consider regularizing the petitioners in compliance with the law within three months [Paras 17, 27-29].

Decision – Writ Petitions allowed – The court set aside the petitioners' discharge orders and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners as COVDOs. The authorities were further instructed to consider the petitioners' regularization in accordance with the law within three months [Paras 28-29].

Criminal Procedure – Section 125 CrPC – Second Maintenance Application – Res Judicata – The applicant sought to quash the order of the Family Court entertaining a second application under Section 125 CrPC by the respondent wife despite the first application being dismissed without liberty to file a fresh case – The applicant contended that the second application was barred by res judicata – The Court, while referring to various judgments including Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor and Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, held that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC aim at providing social justice and preventing vagrancy and destitution – Since these are summary proceedings and the duty to provide maintenance is continuous, the principle of res judicata does not apply [Paras 23-24].

Continuing Duty – Refusal to Maintain Wife – The Court emphasized that the obligation to maintain a wife is a continuous one – It reiterated that refusal by a husband to maintain his wife creates a recurring wrong – Even if the first application was dismissed, a fresh cause of action arises due to the ongoing obligation under law, and the second application is maintainable [Paras 5, 23, 38].

Decision: Application dismissed – The Court held that the second application under Section 125 CrPC was maintainable despite the earlier case being dismissed without permission to refile – The ongoing duty of the husband to maintain his wife under Section 125 CrPC is not extinguished by the dismissal of an earlier application [Paras 38-40].