Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – False Promise of Marriage – FIR registered under Sections 376, 417, and 504 IPC against the petitioners – Allegations of rape based on a false promise of marriage by the first petitioner – Engagement between the complainant and the first petitioner broke down due to family disputes – Contention: Relationship was consensual and allegations were baseless – Held: FIR and charge sheet quashed as allegations did not constitute the offence of rape or cheating under IPC [Paras 2–4, 16–18].

Consent and Misconception of Fact – False Promise vs. Breach of Promise – Examined distinction between consensual sexual relationships and rape – A false promise of marriage amounts to rape only when made without any intention to marry from inception – Breach of a genuine promise due to unforeseen circumstances does not constitute rape or cheating – Court relied on precedents distinguishing between consensual acts and coerced acts based on deception [Paras 9–15].

Witness Testimony – Allegations and Material Evidence – FIR and charge sheet reviewed – Relationship between the complainant and first petitioner spanned seven years, including after the engagement ceremony – No evidence showed the promise to marry was false from inception – Allegations reflected a consensual relationship, not one based on deception [Paras 2–3, 16–18].

Precedents Cited – Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 – Differentiation between false promise and breach of promise – Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 675 – Court must evaluate whether consent was vitiated by misrepresentation – Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1652) – Consensual relationships do not attract Section 376 IPC without clear evidence of deceit – Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032) – FIR quashed when allegations lacked ingredients of rape or coercion.

Decision – Appeal allowed – FIR and charge sheet quashed – Further proceedings would amount to abuse of process and miscarriage of justice – Petitioners discharged from prosecution [Paras 17–18].

Criminal Law – Cheating and Criminal Conspiracy – Quashing of FIR – Financial Dispute – Abuse of Process – The FIR was registered on the complaint of Avtar Singh, alleging that petitioner Jagsir Singh Dhiman refused to return a sum of ₹9,50,000 arising from a business dispute in agricultural tool manufacturing – Petitioners contended that this was a civil dispute improperly pursued as a criminal case – Held: High Court quashed the FIR, finding that the essential ingredients for Sections 420 and 120-B IPC were lacking; case was a financial disagreement, not a criminal offense [Paras 1-3, 9-10].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Preventing Misuse of Judicial Process – High Court emphasized that Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a vital tool to prevent criminal proceedings from being used to settle civil disputes – Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that business or contractual conflicts without criminal elements should not proceed under criminal law – Held: Criminal proceedings should not be allowed to become tools of harassment; quashing justified to prevent misuse of the judicial process [Paras 6-8].

Decision: The petition is allowed, quashing FIR No.03 dated 15.01.2023 under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sehna, District Barnala, and all subsequent proceedings [Paras 9-10].
 

Eviction Suit – Nature of Possession – Usufructuary Mortgage vs. Lease Arrangement – The plaintiff filed for eviction and recovery of possession of agricultural land, claiming he allowed the defendant to cultivate the land temporarily under a lease-like arrangement, later terminated. The defendant argued a right to possession under an alleged usufructuary mortgage agreement. Held: Lower courts found no valid mortgage agreement, confirming the plaintiff's entitlement to recovery of possession. The High Court agreed, noting that the defendant’s claims were unsupported by documentary evidence, making eviction proper [Paras 6-7, 10].

Second Appeal – Scope of Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – The Court reiterated that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law, excluding review of factual findings by lower courts. Here, the appellant raised issues primarily factual in nature, involving interpretation of agreements and possession, without identifying any substantial question of law – Held: No substantial question of law arose, rendering the second appeal inadmissible [Paras 11-13].

Requirement for Pleading and Proof in Mortgage Claims – The defendant claimed rights under a possessory mortgage yet failed to produce evidence of a formal mortgage agreement. The Court held that in absence of documented mortgage terms, and given that the arrangement resembled a lease with a refundable deposit, the claim of usufructuary mortgage was legally unsustainable. The plaintiff’s clear ownership rights thus prevailed over the defendant's possession claim [Paras 14-16].

Decision – The second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, confirming the judgments of the trial and first appellate courts favoring the plaintiff's right to evict and regain possession. No costs were awarded.
 

Bail Application – Principle of Bail as a Rule, Jail as an Exception – The Court reiterated the principle that bail should be the norm and jail the exception, especially when an accused has been in prolonged custody. The petitioner has been detained since September 2020, and given the stage of the trial and lack of criminal antecedents, extended custody was deemed unwarranted [Paras 40-45].

Consideration of Parity in Bail – The petitioner claimed parity as a ground for bail, highlighting that 20 out of 28 co-accused in the same incident had already been granted bail, including others declared proclaimed offenders. The Court found this an important factor supporting the petitioner’s release on bail [Paras 50-55].

Assessment of Prima Facie Case for Bail – Without delving into the merits, the Court assessed whether continuous detention served any further purpose, finding that prolonged custody with slow trial progress undermines the petitioner’s right to liberty under Article 21. The Court noted that the petitioner’s alleged presence during the riot, evidenced by CCTV footage, was a matter for trial and did not preclude bail at this stage [Paras 30-35, 47].

Conditions Imposed for Bail – The petitioner was directed to be released on bail, with conditions including surrendering his passport, reporting regularly to the Investigating Officer, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence, contacting witnesses, and changing address without notification – Held: The petitioner to be released on regular bail on conditions designed to mitigate risk of flight and interference with the investigation [Paras 56-60].

Decision – The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions including a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety, periodic reporting, and restrictions on travel and communication with witnesses.
 

Labour Law - Employment Status of Canteen Workers – Contract Labour Regulation – Sham Contract Alleged – The Industrial Tribunal held that the canteen workers employed through a contractor were in fact employees of HAL, finding the contractual arrangement to be a sham due to HAL’s control over employment terms, wages, and work conditions. However, the High Court, interpreting Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act, ruled that this finding was beyond the Tribunal’s authority in the absence of a prohibition notification issued by the Central Government – Held: The Tribunal’s determination of HAL as the true employer was invalid [Paras 76, 112].

Authority and Jurisdiction – Appropriate Government Determination – HAL argued that the Central Government was the ‘appropriate government’ for its operations, thus rendering the Tribunal’s jurisdiction invalid. The Court, however, concluded that the jurisdiction lay with the State Tribunal, following a delegation of authority by the Central Government to the State Government under Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, as validated by notifications under Section 10(1)(d) – Held: The reference by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal was legally valid [Paras 40-42].

Back Wages – Entitlement of Retrenched Workers – Lack of Evidence of Alternative Employment – The Court assessed the entitlement of the retrenched canteen employees to back wages, applying the principle established in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (2013) 10 SCC 324. The Court held that, as HAL failed to establish that the terminated workers were gainfully employed elsewhere, they were entitled to full back wages from the date of termination – Held: Workers were entitled to back wages from the date of termination until reinstatement [Paras 138-140].

Decision: The writ petition by HAL was partially allowed. The Court set aside the Industrial Tribunal’s findings on the employment status of canteen workers as HAL employees while upholding the Tribunal’s order directing the payment of back wages to the retrenched employees.
 

Civil Law - Amendment of Pleadings – Liberal Approach and Due Diligence – The trial court permitted the respondent’s amendment application in the suit for cancellation of a document, which the petitioner challenged based on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, citing delays and alleging intent to prolong litigation – Held: The High Court supported a liberal approach to amendments, especially where claims of fraud and undue influence were implicated, concluding that the amendment was necessary to clarify the respondent's stance – The proviso to Order VI Rule 17, barring amendments post-trial commencement, did not apply as the trial listing was adjusted due to pending interlocutory applications [Paras 12-16].

Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Applicability Post-Commencement of Trial – The Court affirmed that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, which restricts amendments after trial commencement, does not apply when the trial listing is removed to accommodate pending applications. The trial court’s allowance of the amendment was thus appropriate, as the pleadings required comprehensive articulation of alleged fraud [Paras 18-20].

Discretion of Trial Courts in Amendment Applications – The Court noted that trial courts are best positioned to evaluate the necessity and relevance of amendments in pleadings, provided they do not lead to undue delay or unfair surprise – The decision to allow the amendment was found to be within judicial discretion, aligned with the need for a fair hearing [Paras 21-23].

Decision: The Original Petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's order allowing the amendment in the plaint. No costs were awarded.
 

Service Law – Appointment in Police Force – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Eligibility for Appointment – The petitioner challenged the rejection of his appointment to the Delhi Police due to past involvement in a criminal case from which he was acquitted – He was provisionally selected for the post of Sub-Inspector but his candidature was cancelled by the Screening Committee based on his antecedents, which they deemed unsuitable for the disciplined police force – The petitioner argued that the acquittal was based on lack of credible evidence against him – Held: The acquittal was determined to be "clean" and not based on benefit of doubt or technicality, and thus, the rejection of his candidature on these grounds was deemed unsustainable – The court directed the Delhi Police to appoint the petitioner to the post with retrospective effect but without back wages [Paras 2-27].

Criminal Law – Standing Order 398/2018 – Assessment of Acquittal – Standing Order 398/2018 provides guidelines for assessing the suitability of candidates involved in criminal cases for police service – The order distinguishes "honourable acquittals" from acquittals based on benefit of doubt or witness hostility – Held: An acquittal, free from any suspicion or implication of criminal involvement, mandates that the candidate should not face further disqualification for police service solely based on the prior allegation [Paras 17-22].

Judicial Review – Screening Committee's Decision – Standards for Intervention – The court acknowledged that while judicial review of a Screening Committee's decision is generally limited, it is warranted when the committee's conclusions are inconsistent with the trial court's findings – The Screening Committee in this case was found to have disregarded the trial court's ruling and failed to recognize the petitioner's acquittal as "clean" – Held: The committee's decision was deemed perverse and based on an erroneous interpretation of the trial court's findings, justifying judicial intervention to restore fairness in the recruitment process [Paras 25-27].

Decision – The Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Delhi Police to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Sub-Inspector with retrospective effect from the date of his provisional appointment but without back wages. The petitioner shall join the training program as per the Delhi Police’s guidelines.
 

Criminal Law – Right to Bail in Extended Detention – Application of Section 480(6) of BNSS – The petitioner was held in custody for over two years, with the trial progressing slowly due to procedural delays – Section 480(6) mandates release if trial for non-bailable offenses triable by a Magistrate is not concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for evidence – Held: Since only one prosecution witness out of 33 had been examined despite the lapse of statutory 60 days, petitioner is entitled to bail [Paras 5-8].

Right to Speedy Trial – Extended Custody and Bail Entitlement under BNSS – Petitioner’s trial stalled with minimal progress due to procedural delays – Court emphasized the statutory protection against prolonged detention under BNSS, affirming that extended custody without trial progress infringes on rights of the accused – Held: Bail granted to prevent indefinite detention, with requirements for bond and surety [Paras 9-11].

Decision: The second bail application is allowed. The accused-petitioner is granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and two sureties of ₹50,000 each, subject to conditions of appearance at all court hearings [Paras 12-14].

Bail under NDPS Act – Intermediate Quantity – Applicability of Section 37 Rigors - The applicant, arrested with 46.23 grams of heroin, claimed that the contraband did not fall under "commercial quantity" and hence did not trigger Section 37’s stringent conditions of the NDPS Act – Court held that since the seized quantity was intermediate, the strictures of Section 37 were not applicable, making bail consideration favorable in this context [Paras 6-8, 13].

Previous Acquittal and Presumption of Innocence - Applicant had prior cases registered but was acquitted in one case (FIR No. 31 of 2022), with no conviction recorded in the other – Court reiterated that pending trial, the applicant enjoys the presumption of innocence, thus weakening the argument for continued custody solely based on past charges [Para 15].

Custodial Interrogation Not Required – Investigation Complete - Since the police had filed the final report and no further evidence was needed, the court observed that continued judicial custody would serve no additional purpose – Court noted that the applicant’s co-accused had also been granted bail on parity grounds [Paras 9-10, 16].

Bail Conditions – Prevention of Tampering and Assuring Appearance - Bail was granted under conditions including attendance at all hearings, no tampering with evidence, and prohibition on leaving India without court permission – Court directed compliance monitoring and allowed the state to petition if conditions were violated [Paras 20-23].

Decision: Bail application allowed. Applicant ordered to be released on personal bail bond of ₹50,000 with one surety, subject to conditions to ensure cooperation with judicial proceedings.