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].

Kidnapping and Gang Rape – Section 363 and 376D RPC – Conflicting Prosecution Versions – Conviction Set Aside – The appellants were convicted of kidnapping and gang rape by the trial court. The appellants challenged the conviction, highlighting contradictions in prosecution witnesses' testimonies, lack of proper evidence to establish the age of the prosecutrix, and the absence of forensic evidence regarding alleged semen stains – Held: Conviction set aside due to unreliable evidence, serious contradictions in witness testimonies, and failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 12, 25].

Contradictory Testimonies – Medical Evidence Overlooked – Prosecution Case Weakened – Multiple versions of the incident were presented by the prosecution, leading to confusion. The medical examination of the prosecutrix showed no signs of recent sexual intercourse, and the forensic science report was not produced in court. Additionally, the complainant (PW-3) did not testify, further weakening the case – Held: The contradictions and lack of medical evidence cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case [Paras 10-15, 23].

Failure to Prove Minority of Prosecutrix – Date of Birth Not Substantiated by School Records – The prosecution failed to produce school records or a matriculation certificate to prove the prosecutrix’s age. The trial court relied on an unverified school certificate to determine the prosecutrix's minority, a crucial aspect in establishing the kidnapping charge – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the alleged incident [Paras 16, 25].

Forensic Evidence Not Presented – No Chemical Examination of Alleged Stains – The prosecution seized a bed sheet and clothing containing alleged semen stains but failed to present the forensic examination report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). This significant omission weakened the prosecution's case – Held: Failure to produce forensic evidence renders the prosecution’s case unreliable [Paras 23, 25].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Sections 363 and 376D RPC is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges, and they are to be released immediately [Paras 25-26].

Banking Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Petitioners, officers of Punjab National Bank, were prosecuted based on allegations of sanctioning loans in violation of bank norms – Earlier, the competent authority refused to grant sanction for prosecution due to lack of malafides and minor procedural lapses – Sanction was later granted under pressure from the CVC and DoPT without any new material or circumstances – Held: The subsequent sanction orders were illegal as they were not based on fresh material and violated service regulations – Prosecution cannot be based on mechanical approval influenced by external bodies [Paras 1, 10, 16, 40, 54].

Probationary Officer – Liability for Loan Processing – Petitioners were probationary officers with less than two years of service, processing loans as part of their training – The Ministry of Finance guidelines prohibited assigning such officers the responsibility of recommending loans unless as part of their learning process – Held: Petitioners, being probationers, should not bear criminal liability for any lapses – Blame should lie with the supervising officers [Paras 9, 54].

Sanction Orders – Invalidity of Reviewed Sanction – Initially, sanction for prosecution was denied after disciplinary proceedings against petitioners resulted in penalties – Sanction was later granted without any new material, under pressure from CVC and DoPT – Held: Review of the sanction without new material or failure to consider relevant facts was improper – The subsequent grant of sanction was quashed [Paras 10, 16, 40, 50, 54].

Judicial Review – Role of Vigilance Commission – CVC's advice was not binding on the disciplinary authority – The competent authority must independently assess the facts before granting sanction – External pressure cannot justify sanction orders [Paras 38, 40, 54].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Sanction orders for prosecution quashed – Petitioners absolved of criminal prosecution based on invalid sanction orders [Paras 55].

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].

Criminal Procedure – Maintenance – Ex Parte Order – Non-Compliance with Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. – The petitioner-husband sought to set aside the ex parte order of maintenance passed against him, arguing that the Family Court did not provide him with an opportunity to be heard and no proper notice of hearing was served – Held: The Family Court failed to establish that the petitioner wilfully avoided service or neglected to attend the court as required under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. – The court must be satisfied that the person against whom an order for maintenance is made was wilfully avoiding service or neglecting to attend the proceedings – Since no such satisfaction was recorded by the Family Court, the ex parte order is liable to be set aside [Paras 10-13].

Service of Notice – Essential for Ex Parte Proceedings – The Family Court did not make any observation or provide evidence that the petitioner was informed of the specific dates of the proceedings, nor was it proven that the petitioner wilfully neglected to attend the court – Knowledge of the maintenance case alone is insufficient; the petitioner must be informed of the actual hearing dates – The absence of proper service of notice resulted in a violation of the petitioner’s rights, necessitating the quashing of the ex parte order [Paras 12-13].

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 to the Family Court, Begusarai, for fresh consideration, and both parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 12/11/2024 [Paras 13-14].
 

Civil Writ – Labour Law - Principles of Natural Justice – Failure to Supply Interim Reports – The petitioner challenged the impugned order, arguing that it was passed without providing copies of interim reports prepared by the Social Security Officer, which were relied upon by the respondent – Held: The failure to supply the interim reports and not providing an opportunity to respond to them amounted to a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside on this ground [Paras 4, 10, 11].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Alternate Remedies – The respondent argued that the petitioner should have availed statutory remedies under Sections 45AA and 75 of the ESI Act – Held: While alternate remedies exist, the violation of principles of natural justice permits the High Court to entertain the writ petition under Article 226, as established in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 [Paras 5, 14].

Remand for Fresh Consideration – The Court remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh disposal, directing that copies of the interim reports be provided to the petitioner and an opportunity to respond be given before passing a fresh order [Paras 15, 16].

Decision: The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29th December 2023 is quashed, and the matter is remanded to the ESIC for fresh adjudication after providing the petitioner with copies of the interim reports and an opportunity to present their case [Paras 15, 16].

Income Tax – Reassessment – Writ petition challenging reassessment based on an admitted error in filing – Petitioner made a mistake in the tax declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, which led to a reassessment notice – The mistake was flagged to the authorities, including the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), but the mistake was not corrected, and reassessment proceedings were initiated – Court finds no escaped income warranting reassessment – Held: Reassessment order set aside and quashed as it was based on a mistake [Paras 1-6].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Respondent’s counsel contended that the order was appealable under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and hence, the writ petition was not maintainable – Without prejudice, it was argued that the writ petition did not warrant interference – Court exercised extraordinary writ jurisdiction to quash the reassessment order due to clear error in assessment [Paras 4, 6].

Voluntary Disclosure Scheme – Erroneous Tax Declaration – Petitioner-assessee had mistakenly shown a tax installment paid under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme as tax paid under regular return filing – Court finds that the mistake was acknowledged by the Assessing Officer (AO), yet it was not properly addressed in the reassessment order – Held: The reassessment order failed to recognize the error and the corresponding communication, warranting quashing [Paras 2, 5-6].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Reassessment order for AY 2017-18 quashed – Petitioner discharged from liability arising from the mistaken reassessment [Paras 6-7].

Writ Jurisdiction – Tender Process – Preferential Policy – Petitioner, a micro enterprise registered under Udyam, challenged the tender terms for excluding it from the benefits under Assam Procurement Preference Policy, 2021, and the Procurement Preferential Order, 2017 – Court found that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility requirement of 10 years of existence as stipulated in the tender – Held: Tender terms, including requirements for bidder existence, fall within the domain of the tendering authority and are not arbitrary or unreasonable – Writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to interfere with commercial decisions unless malafide, arbitrariness, or irrationality is proven [Paras 22-28].

Micro & Small Enterprise – Benefits Under Tender – Registered Micro Enterprise ("Udyam") – Petitioner's registration as Udyam is not disputed, allowing for certain concessions in the tender process – However, to avail these benefits, the petitioner must first fulfill the technical eligibility criteria as laid out in the tender document – As the petitioner did not fulfill the 10-year existence clause, the preferential benefits were not applicable [Paras 23, 29].

Judicial Review in Tender Matters – Limited Scope – Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are commercial functions, and the judiciary should not interfere unless there is evidence of arbitrariness, irrationality, or favoritism – The clause requiring 10 years of existence for bidders is not found to be arbitrary or unreasonable in this context [Paras 25-28].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – The Court held that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility requirement of 10 years of existence as stipulated in the tender document – The conditions laid out in the tender were within the prerogative of the authority and not arbitrary or unreasonable – Interim order vacated [Paras 29-30].