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].

Ex Parte Order in Maintenance Case – Non-Appearance of Petitioner – Section 125 CrPC – The petitioner challenged the ex parte order passed by the Family Court, directing him to pay maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month to his wife – Petitioner contended that no proper notice of hearing was served, and the Family Court failed to observe whether his absence was wilful – Held: As per Section 126(2) CrPC, before passing an ex parte order, the Court must satisfy itself that the respondent wilfully avoided attending the proceedings – The Court found no evidence that the petitioner wilfully neglected to attend or was informed about the specific dates of the hearing [Paras 8-12].

Satisfaction of Court Before Proceeding Ex Parte – Requirement under Section 126(2) CrPC – The Family Court failed to record satisfaction that the petitioner wilfully neglected to attend the Court – A mere knowledge of the maintenance case's filing was insufficient to establish wilful avoidance of court attendance – The absence of a specific notice of hearing dates to the petitioner violated procedural requirements – Held: Ex parte order set aside due to non-compliance with Section 126(2) CrPC [Paras 10-12].

Final Decision – The revision petition is allowed – The ex parte order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the Family Court is set aside – The matter is remitted back to the Family Court, Begusarai, to decide the case afresh after giving both parties an opportunity of hearing – Both parties directed to appear before the Family Court on 12.11.2024 [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Complaint – Writ of Certiorari – Petition filed by the Petitioner, a practicing Advocate, seeking quashing of the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. – Magistrate directed Kurla Police to conduct an investigation and submit a report within four months – Petitioner contended that the order was illegal, as the Magistrate failed to comply with provisions of Section 202(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. by not recording the statement of the complainant and witnesses – Contention raised that the Magistrate at Kurla lacked territorial jurisdiction since the cause of action arose in Goa – Held: Magistrate complied with Section 202 by accepting affidavit in lieu of verification – Magistrate had discretion to order inquiry by Police due to accused persons residing beyond jurisdiction – Petition dismissed as premature, as the investigation under Section 202 was ongoing and the Magistrate had not yet issued process [Paras 10, 11, 19, 20, 27, 28, 33, 34, 38].

Magistrate’s Inquiry – Compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner argued that the Magistrate failed to examine the complainant and witnesses on oath as required under Section 202(1)(b) Cr.P.C. before directing inquiry – Court found that an affidavit filed by the complainant was recorded in lieu of verification – Magistrate’s direction for Police inquiry was valid under Section 202, especially since some accused persons resided outside the jurisdiction – Held: Magistrate rightly exercised discretion under Section 202 to direct an investigation by Police – The inquiry was necessary to determine sufficient grounds for proceeding [Paras 19, 20, 23, 24, 25].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Accused's Objection – Petitioner challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Kurla, arguing that the alleged offences occurred in Goa, not Mumbai – Court held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction was premature as the Magistrate had not yet formed an opinion or issued process – Territorial jurisdiction would be examined when the Magistrate considers the sufficiency of grounds under Section 203 or 204 Cr.P.C. – Complaint stage under Section 202 involves inquiry into sufficient grounds for process, not determination of jurisdiction [Paras 11, 22, 23, 26, 34, 36, 37].

Premature Challenge – Stage of Investigation – Petitioner’s challenge to the Magistrate’s order was deemed premature – Magistrate had only ordered an investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and had not yet issued process or taken cognizance – Court held that the Petitioner had no cause of action to challenge the order at this stage, as it was possible the Magistrate might dismiss the complaint after receiving the investigation report – Petitioner could challenge the process if issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C., but not prior to that [Paras 26, 27, 28, 33, 34].

Police Inquiry Notice – Section 160 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner received a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. from Kurla Police Station, directing her to appear for inquiry – Petitioner argued that this notice gave rise to the cause of action to challenge the Magistrate’s order – Court held that the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was issued for investigation purposes, and the Petitioner was required to appear as a witness – The notice did not provide grounds to challenge the investigation order, as it did not equate to a criminal charge against the Petitioner [Paras 29, 30, 32, 33].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Magistrate’s order directing investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. upheld – Complaint not yet at the stage of issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. – No cause of action for Petitioner to challenge the inquiry order at this stage – Petitioner to await the outcome of the investigation before raising objections regarding territorial jurisdiction or sufficiency of grounds for process [Paras 40].

Society Election Dispute – Referral by Deputy Registrar to Prescribed Authority – Validity of Process – Multiple factions of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha claimed to have held valid elections in early 2021 – The Deputy Registrar, without offering reasons or examining the prima facie validity of the claims, referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority – Held: The Deputy Registrar is not a mere rubber stamp – Before referring the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, the Deputy Registrar must apply judicial mind to ascertain the genuineness of the dispute – Mechanical referral is invalid without forming a subjective satisfaction on whether the competing elections are bona fide – Matter remitted to the Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration [Paras 88-116].

Membership and Election Validity – Role of Deputy Registrar – Where conflicting elections are claimed by different factions, the Deputy Registrar is obligated to preliminarily assess the legitimacy of membership and elections – The Deputy Registrar must ensure that only genuine disputes are referred to the Prescribed Authority – Mechanical referrals undermine the statutory scheme and can lead to prolonged litigation [Paras 99-104].

Decision:Order of the Deputy Registrar dated 23.04.2022 quashed – The matter remitted to the Deputy Registrar for reconsideration by a reasoned and speaking order – The fresh decision must be completed within four months [Paras 116-118].

Prevention of Money Laundering – Quashing - Issuance of Summons under Section 50(2) and (3) of PMLA – Section 44 PMLA – Dismissed - The petitioner, a former Director of M/s. Farmax India Limited, was summoned under Section 50(2) and (3) of the PMLA while the case under S.C. No. 16/2023 was pending before the Special Court – The petitioner contended that once the complaint was filed and the Special Court had taken cognizance, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) could not issue summons for further investigation without the court's permission – Held: The issuance of summons does not violate Article 20(3) as it does not amount to compulsion to self-incriminate – The court ruled that Section 50 empowers the ED to summon the accused to give evidence or produce documents even after a complaint is filed – The investigation is a continuing process, and no prior permission is required for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, which applies to PMLA investigations as well [Paras 12-28].

Fundamental Rights – Article 20(3) of Constitution – Right Against Self-incrimination – The petitioner argued that the summons violated his right under Article 20(3) by compelling him to testify against himself – Held: The right under Article 20(3) applies only when a person is compelled to be a witness against himself – Merely being summoned to produce documents or provide testimony does not amount to compulsion under Article 20(3) [Paras 25-30].

Decision:The writ petition was dismissed – The court upheld the validity of the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 50(2) and (3) of the PMLA – No prior permission from the Special Court is required for further investigation or issuance of summons.

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Principles Governing Anticipatory Bail – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged cheating of village residents for over ₹1.19 crore. The Court considered the stage of the investigation and the serious nature of the allegations – Held: Custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation, and granting anticipatory bail at this stage would hinder the ongoing investigation. Anticipatory bail denied [Paras 7-12].

Balancing Personal Liberty with Public Interest – Anticipatory bail must balance individual liberty and the interests of society. In cases involving serious allegations of public fraud, societal interests may override personal liberty – Held: In light of the seriousness of allegations and ongoing investigation, the petitioner does not qualify for anticipatory bail [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Petition dismissed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Charges – Proceedings under SC/ST Act – Compromise between Parties – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash the charge sheet and entire proceedings of S.T. No.130 of 2022 under Sections 504, 506, 323 IPC and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act – Case based on a compromise between the parties – Opposite party no. 2, Ajay Pal, admitted to filing a false FIR under pressure and tendered an apology – Opposite party no. 2 stated that he no longer wished to pursue the case – Court quashed the entire proceedings of the criminal case based on the compromise [Paras 1–5, 7].

Compromise – Return of Compensation – Failure of Opposite Party to Return Compensation – Opposite party no. 2 had received Rs. 75,000 as compensation from the State – Despite the compromise, he initially refused to return the compensation amount – Court ordered the return of the compensation and ensured that the remaining Rs. 25,000 would not be released to him – Ajay Pal returned the compensation amount by presenting a demand draft, confirming his decision not to press charges [Paras 6–7].

Misuse of SC/ST Act – Filing of False FIR – Observations by Court – Court expressed concern over the misuse of the SC/ST Act for financial gain, stating that several false complaints had been filed to obtain compensation – Emphasized that filing false FIRs dilutes the effectiveness of the Act and erodes trust in the justice system – Recommended the implementation of rigorous verification processes to prevent misuse and suggested invoking Section 182 IPC to penalize individuals who file false complaints [Paras 8–9].

Decision – Application Allowed – Quashing of Proceedings – Court quashed the charge sheet and entire proceedings based on the compromise – Directed Registrar General to circulate the order and instructed the police to consider invoking Section 182 IPC in similar cases – Application allowed, no order as to costs [Paras 10–12].

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].

Dowry Death – Section 304-B IPC – The petitioner alleged that his sister, Gulshan, was harassed and killed by her in-laws, including her husband, over unmet dowry demands and her inability to conceive – The trial court acquitted all nine accused, leading to this revision petition – Held: The court found that the demand for dowry was sufficiently proven against Gulshan’s husband, Mehfuj Ali, but not against the other accused – Acquittal of Mehfuj Ali quashed, while the acquittal of other respondents affirmed [Paras 12, 25, Conclusion].

Presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act – The court emphasized the presumption of dowry death under Section 113-B when cruelty or harassment is shown to have occurred "soon before" the victim's death – Gulshan died within seven years of marriage under unnatural circumstances due to poisoning – The court held that the husband failed to rebut the presumption of dowry-related harassment and cruelty [Paras 12, 26, 28].

Acquittal of Other Accused – Insufficient Evidence – The court upheld the acquittal of the other accused, including Gulshan’s in-laws and extended family, due to the lack of direct evidence linking them to dowry demands or harassment – No sufficient proof of their involvement in the alleged conspiracy or cruelty was presented by the prosecution [Paras 11, 36].

Cause of Death – Suicide or Homicide – The post-mortem and forensic reports indicated that Gulshan died due to poisoning, but no external injuries suggesting force or violence were found – The defence argued that Gulshan committed suicide due to depression over childlessness, which the court found probable in light of the evidence, though not sufficient to exonerate the husband’s role [Paras 12, 28, 36].

Decision: The appeal is partly allowed – Acquittal of respondent Mehfuj Ali is quashed, and he is convicted under Section 304-B IPC for dowry death – Acquittal of the remaining respondents is affirmed – All pending applications are disposed of [Paras 36, Conclusion].