Criminal Law -  Revision against charges - Abetment of Suicide – Ingredients under Section 306 IPC – Charge Maintained – Petitioner challenged the framing of charges under Section 306 IPC, arguing insufficient evidence of instigation – Court held that circumstantial evidence, including the death note and witness statements, created a grave suspicion justifying the framing of charges – Revision dismissed [Paras 8-12].

Mens Rea and Instigation – Legal Threshold Explained – Relying on precedents, Court reiterated that for conviction under Section 306 IPC, instigation requires a clear mens rea to provoke or incite the deceased to commit suicide – Found that petitioner’s alleged actions and omissions, including withdrawal from marriage and relationship dynamics, warranted further trial [Paras 15-18].

Death Note as Evidence – Inference of Circumstances – Court emphasized the relevance of the deceased’s death note, which indicated emotional distress caused by the petitioner’s withdrawal from marriage and alleged interest in another person – Held sufficient to infer possible instigation subject to trial [Paras 11-14].

Correction of Errors in Framing Charges – Direction Issued – Court noted procedural errors in the initial framing of charges by the Assistant Sessions Judge – Directed the trial court to correct and read over the revised charges to the petitioner before proceeding further [Para 19].

Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed. Court upheld the framing of charges under Section 306 IPC while directing the trial court to revise the charges and proceed with trial in accordance with law.

Bail - Economic Offences – Serious Nature of Charges – Bail Denied – Petitioner sought bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving siphoning of ₹3,035.52 crores through fraudulent practices, including bogus purchases, round-tripping, and fake transactions – Court held that the gravity of economic offences and the role of the petitioner, as a key beneficiary and participant in fraudulent transactions, militated against grant of bail [Paras 10-13].

Section 45 PMLA – Twin Conditions for Bail – Applied and Not Satisfied – Court reaffirmed the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA requiring satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence if released – Held: Evidence on record prima facie suggested active involvement of the petitioner in laundering proceeds of crime; bail rejected [Para 13].

Role in Money Laundering – Evidence and Statements – Material Implicating Accused – Evidence included forensic audit reports, statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA, and documentary proof of siphoning funds via dummy entities and fake invoices – Petitioner was found to have derived substantial financial benefits, including remuneration disproportionate to his qualifications and contributions [Paras 6-12].

Parity with Co-Accused – No Entitlement to Bail Based on Role Comparison – Court noted that co-accused Tarun Kumar’s bail had been denied by the Supreme Court, and the petitioner’s role as a director and active decision-maker in the fraudulent transactions was graver than that of the co-accused who were granted bail on medical grounds [Para 13].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Held: In light of the petitioner’s significant involvement in the crime, quantum of siphoned funds, and failure to satisfy conditions under Section 45 PMLA, the application for bail was rejected – Pending applications disposed of without prejudice to trial merits [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Non-compliance with Settlement Terms – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings based on a settlement agreement in divorce proceedings where the respondent refused to proceed with the second motion under Section 13B(2) of the HMA – Held: Withdrawal of consent for mutual divorce is a statutory right under Section 13B(2) HMA and does not constitute abuse of process – Petition dismissed [Paras 15-18].

Mutual Consent Divorce – Withdrawal of Consent – Legal Implications – Citing precedents, Court held that mutual consent under Section 13B(2) HMA must persist through the cooling-off period until the final decree – Respondent-wife’s decision to withdraw consent was found consistent with statutory provisions and did not justify quashing of criminal charges [Paras 23-27].

Abuse of Process – Allegations in FIR – Merits to be Tested During Trial – The Court emphasized that criminal charges arising from the FIR, including allegations of cruelty and dowry demands, disclosed cognizable offences – Investigation and trial deemed necessary to determine the veracity of allegations [Paras 30-34].

Settlement Agreement – Performance of Terms – Respondent’s Claims Supported by Evidence – Court noted that the petitioner failed to transfer the flat as agreed, while the respondent paid ₹10,00,000 towards society maintenance – Petitioner could not benefit from partial compliance with the settlement terms [Paras 29-31].

Decision – Interim Stay Vacated – Trial to Proceed – Court dismissed the petition and vacated the interim stay on trial court proceedings – Directed trial to proceed based on evidence without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to seek discharge [Paras 36-38].
 

Service Law - Recruitment Process – Discrepancies in Academic Records – Rejection Overturned – Petitioners challenged their rejection based on alleged errors in converting GPA to percentages for Class 10th marks – Court held that in the absence of a specific conversion formula, petitioners could not be faulted for using a different method than preferred by respondents – Clarifications issued by the Andhra Pradesh Directorate of Examinations validated petitioners’ approach [Paras 18-22, 31].

Caste Certificate – Typographical Error in Father’s Name – Rejection Unjustified – Petitioner No. 3’s candidature was rejected due to mismatch in father’s name on the caste certificate – Court found that the discrepancy was a minor typographical error made by the issuing authority, not attributable to the petitioner – Held: Rejection solely on this ground was unjustified [Paras 30-32].

Administrative Discretion vs. Innocent Errors – Equitable Relief Granted – Court emphasized the need for a balanced approach in administrative processes, especially where minor discrepancies are involved without malafide intent – Rejected respondents’ hyper-technical stance, observing that such errors do not undermine the integrity of the recruitment process [Paras 25-28, 35].

Judicial Review – Document Verification Purpose Clarified – Candidate Protection Upheld – Court clarified that document verification primarily ensures authenticity and absence of impersonation – Held: Errors due to circumstances beyond candidates’ control, such as COVID-related delays, should not lead to outright disqualification [Paras 27-30, 33].

Decision – Candidature Restored with Conditions – Court quashed the rejection emails dated 05.07.2022 – Directed respondents to verify corrected documents and allow petitioners to join the induction course if they clear subsequent formalities – Seniority to be reckoned with original batch but no salary benefits for the intervening period [Para 37].
 

Interim Orders in Public Projects – Ex-parte Stay – Procurement of Conveyor Belts – Ex-parte interim stay was granted restraining the appellants from awarding work to the lowest bidder for essential procurement of conveyor belts for thermal power plants – Court held that such orders should not lightly derail public projects critical to infrastructure or electricity production – Stay orders in such matters must be promptly reviewed or vacated to avoid adverse public consequences [Paras 10-13].

Scope of Judicial Review in Tender Matters – Lowest Bidder’s Eligibility – The award of a tender to the lowest bidder was challenged based on alleged ineligibility due to prior debarment – Court held that the procurement process adhered to fiscal prudence, expert opinion, and performance records – Judicial intervention limited to procedural fairness without disrupting public interest [Paras 11-12].

Public Interest and Expediency in Adjudication – Delay in resolving interim applications – Court criticized the prolonged pendency of stay applications, noting that unresolved interim orders effectively decide the main case – Directed the Single Bench to expeditiously conclude the writ petition within one month to prevent public detriment [Paras 9-13].

Infrastructure Projects and Judicial Restraint – Following the Supreme Court’s guidance in N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain (2022) 6 SCC 127, Court emphasized that public service contracts require judicial restraint in granting interim orders – Continuation of such orders undermines public welfare and results in avoidable state losses [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Interim stay to continue only for one month or until the writ petition is decided, whichever is earlier – Single Bench directed to dispose of the writ petition within one month [Para 14].

Service Law - Jurisdiction of Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) – Section 46 of BSF Act – Trial of Civil Offences – Nullity of Proceedings – The Summary Security Force Court convicted and punished the petitioners for remitting bank drafts disproportionate to their known sources of income under Section 46 of the BSF Act read with Section 13(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Held: Section 46 permits the trial of civil offences but Rule 47 of BSF Rules explicitly restricts SSFC jurisdiction to certain limited offences, such as simple hurt and theft – SSFC lacked jurisdiction to try offences under Section 13(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Impugned orders quashed [Paras 24-27].

Failure to Conduct Proper Inquiry – Violation of BSF Act and Rules – Petitioners were not afforded an opportunity to be heard, and no proper inquiry was conducted as required under the BSF Act and Rules – Held: Proceedings and convictions are violative of procedural safeguards and natural justice – Punishments awarded are illegal and unsustainable [Paras 23-26].

Restoration of Service – Nullity of Dismissal Orders – Petitioners’ dismissal from service was declared void due to lack of jurisdiction and procedural violations – Held: Petitioners entitled to reinstatement in service with back wages, subject to further prosecution by the respondents [Para 27].

Judicial Precedent – Applicability of Sumanta Dutta v. Union of India – The Court relied on the judgment in Sumanta Dutta v. Union of India, SWP No. 135/2005, wherein it was held that the SSFC lacked jurisdiction to try civil offences beyond simple hurt and theft – Held: The legal principles enunciated in Sumanta Dutta squarely apply to the present cases [Paras 25-27].

Relief Granted:
The impugned orders passed by the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) were quashed as being without jurisdiction and a nullity in law.
Petitioners were directed to be reinstated in service.
Payment of back wages shall depend on whether the respondents prosecute the petitioners further; if no prosecution is initiated, petitioners shall be entitled to full back wages from the date of dismissal until reinstatement.
 

Service Law – Age of Superannuation – Classification as Class-III Employee Affirmed - Petitioner contended that he was a Class-IV employee entitled to retire at 60 years instead of 58 years – Court upheld the respondents’ classification, noting that the petitioner worked as a Diesel Mechanic in the pay scale reserved for Class-III employees, making the retirement age of 58 years applicable [Paras 5-8].

Delay and Laches – Writ Petition Filed After 8 Years – Claim Barred - Petitioner retired in 2008 but filed the writ petition in 2016, after an unexplained delay of eight years – Court held the petition barred by delay and laches, referencing authoritative precedents rejecting belated claims under equitable jurisdiction [Paras 10-13].

Equitable Relief – Rights Must Be Asserted Promptly – Judicial Discretion Applied - Even though there was no prescribed limitation, the Court emphasized the need for vigilance in asserting rights under Article 226 – Held: Relief cannot be granted to a petitioner who has slept over his rights [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed. No costs awarded.
 

Matrimonial Disputes – Power to Quash FIR – Sections 498-A and 506 IPC – Non-Compoundable Offences – Amicable Settlement – FIR Quashed – In matrimonial disputes and cases relating to family matters, where the dispute is personal or private in nature, and the parties have resolved their issues amicably, the High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, even if some of the alleged offences are non-compoundable – Held: The continuation of criminal proceedings after a compromise would be an abuse of the process of law, and there would be no purpose served in continuing such proceedings – [Paras 9-11].

Compromise Between Parties – Legal Recognition – Sections 498-A and 506 IPC – Settlement Verified – The compromise between the parties was verified by the Registrar Judicial of the Court, and both parties confirmed its execution – Held: Once a genuine compromise is established, and the likelihood of conviction is remote, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to injustice – [Paras 3-4, 10-11].

High Court’s Inherent Powers – Matrimonial Offences – Quashing Criminal Proceedings – The High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC extends to quashing criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes when it is evident that the continuation of such proceedings would defeat the settlement and cause unnecessary hardship to the parties – [Para 9].

Judicial Precedent – Matrimonial Offences – Non-Compoundable Nature – The Supreme Court has consistently held that in cases arising from family disputes, even non-compoundable offences may be quashed in the interest of justice where a genuine settlement has been reached – Reliance placed on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 – [Para 9].

Decision: FIR Quashed: FIR No. 19/2023 registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Udhampur, for offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, were quashed in light of the amicable settlement reached between the parties.

Compromise Accepted: The compromise deed executed on 12/09/2024 was verified, and its contents were confirmed by both parties.

Abuse of Process Prevented: It was held that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law and a waste of judicial resources.

Judicial Precedents Followed: The Court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to emphasize that matrimonial disputes can be resolved through compromise, even if the offences are non-compoundable.
 

Constitutional Law – Ultra Vires Declaration – Section 10-A of Telangana Act Invalidated – Petitioners, unemployed youth, contended that Section 10-A, allowing regularization of contract employees, contravened Articles 14, 16, and 309 of the Constitution, and undermined statutory recruitment rules – Court held: Section 10-A is ultra vires as it conflicts with existing Education Service Rules and exceeds the scope of Section 101 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act – Provision quashed [Paras 50-54].

Employment – Regularization Without Transparency – Contrary to Public Policy – Regularization under Section 10-A applied to contract employees appointed without adherence to statutory procedures – Held: Public employment must adhere to principles of equality and fairness; backdoor entries into public service through opaque methods cannot be regularized retrospectively [Paras 35-39, 57].

Doctrine of Res Judicata – Not Applicable to Petitioners – Respondents’ argument that the writ petitions were barred by res judicata due to prior PIL proceedings was rejected – Court noted the earlier PIL was dismissed on technical grounds without addressing merits, and petitioners were not parties to those proceedings [Paras 10-12].

Scope of Section 101 – Limited to Modifications Without Substantive Changes – The Court emphasized that Section 101 of the Reorganisation Act permits adaptations or amendments to existing laws but does not allow for substantive legislative changes, such as the introduction of Section 10-A, which contradicts pre-existing statutory recruitment rules [Paras 42-49].

Judicial Restraint – Existing Regularized Employees Retained – While declaring Section 10-A unconstitutional, the Court declined to disturb the regularized status of employees due to their long tenure, balancing equity and public interest – Future recruitments directed to follow statutory procedures [Paras 58-60].

Decision: The Court declared Section 10-A of the Telangana Act, 1994, ultra vires and set it aside. However, it allowed the already regularized employees to continue in service, directing the State to ensure future appointments comply with statutory provisions.