Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Civil Dispute vs. Criminal Offence – The petitioners, former directors of a company, were accused of non-payment of outstanding salary and performance bonus to an ex-employee. The Court held that the allegations, even if true, constituted a civil dispute over payment of dues and did not amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust under Sections 420 and 406 IPC – No dishonest or fraudulent intention was shown at the time of engagement – Non-payment of salary alone does not amount to criminal offence [Paras 16-25]​.

Jurisdiction – Mandatory Enquiry under Section 202 CrPC – The Court noted that the petitioners resided outside the jurisdiction of the trial court. As per Section 202 of CrPC, a mandatory enquiry must be conducted before issuing summons to accused persons residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction – Since the enquiry was not conducted, the proceedings were quashed [Paras 30-40]​.

Decision – Criminal revision allowed – Proceedings quashed – Issuance of summons to the petitioners set aside​.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Section 188 IPC – Absence of Written Complaint by Public Servant – Proceedings Quashed - The petitioners were charged under Section 188 IPC for allegedly obstructing a police officer’s duty. The Court held that cognizance under Section 188 IPC requires a written complaint from the public servant as per Section 195(1)(a) CrPC. Since no such written complaint was filed, the Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the charge sheet and FIR were without jurisdiction [Paras 8-10].

Section 195 CrPC – Bar on Cognizance Without Written Complaint – Application of Law - The Court reiterated the bar under Section 195 CrPC, which requires a written complaint by the public servant for offences under Section 188 IPC. The absence of such a complaint vitiates the entire proceedings, even if other charges, like Section 323 and Section 353 IPC, are involved, as these charges arise from the same transaction [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Criminal Proceedings Quashed - The Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners under Sections 188, 323, and 353 read with Section 149 IPC, in light of the lack of a valid written complaint from the public servant, as required by law [Paras 12-13].

Trafficking and Exploitation – Section 370(A)(2) IPC – Applicability to Customers – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner, accused as a customer in a case of prostitution, sought to quash the proceedings against him, arguing that Section 370(A)(2) IPC should not apply to customers. The Court rejected this argument, holding that Section 370(A)(2) IPC clearly covers individuals who knowingly engage in sexual exploitation of trafficked persons, including customers. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the petitioner’s involvement as a customer fell within the ambit of the offence under Section 370(A)(2) IPC [Paras 6-12].

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act – Distinction Between Punishment for Traffickers and Customers - The Court reiterated that while the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act primarily target traffickers, Section 370(A)(2) IPC specifically penalizes customers who exploit trafficked persons. The petitioner, being caught in the act of sexual exploitation, was correctly charged under Section 370(A)(2) IPC, and the charges were upheld [Paras 8-11].

Decision – Criminal Petition Dismissed - The Court dismissed the criminal petition, ruling that the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 370(A)(2) IPC would continue, as the petitioner’s role as a customer fell squarely under the purview of the offence [Paras 12-13].

Constitutional Law – Writ Petition Against Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) – Availability of Statutory Remedies – The petitioner filed a writ petition against the PAO issued by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before the expiration of the 30-day statutory period for raising objections before the Adjudicating Authority – Held: The writ petition is premature as the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedies available under Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA, which provide adequate safeguards and opportunities to challenge the attachment – Petition dismissed, petitioner directed to approach the Adjudicating Authority [Paras 1.1, 3.1, 3.6].

Provisional Attachment Under PMLA – Judicial Review – The petitioner’s challenge to the PAO, asserting a lack of connection with the proceeds of crime, was found unsustainable – The PAO is subject to review and confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority within 180 days as per Section 5(5) of the PMLA – The court found that statutory remedies must be exhausted unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not present in this case – Reliance placed on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2022) SCC Online SC 929 to emphasize procedural safeguards provided under the Act [Paras 3.1, 3.6].

Exceptions to Exhaustion of Remedies – When Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked – The petitioner failed to establish that the PAO was passed without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, or amounted to an abuse of process, which are the grounds for bypassing statutory remedies – Court reiterated the principles laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499 regarding the limited exceptions to the rule of exhausting remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 3.2, 3.6].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner directed to avail statutory remedy by approaching the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA – No observation on the merits of the case made – The Adjudicating Authority is directed to expedite the matter [Paras 4.1-4.2].

Permissive Possession – Adverse Possession Claim Rejected – Appeal Allowed – The plaintiff-appellant sought possession of land transferred under an agreement to sell, which was subsequently cancelled. The respondent-defendant claimed adverse possession, citing long-standing occupancy post-termination. Held: Possession acquired through an agreement to sell is inherently permissive; adverse possession cannot arise until the vendee repudiates this permission and establishes hostile ownership. Asserting adverse possession while retaining rights under the agreement is contradictory and invalidates the adverse possession claim [Paras 22-25, 28].

Doctrine of Part Performance and Adverse Possession – Incompatibility – The Court emphasized that a vendee in possession under an agreement to sell cannot simultaneously claim adverse possession and part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Following Mohan Lal v. Mirza Abdul Gaffar, the Court ruled that permissive possession through an agreement precludes hostile possession until explicit repudiation of the agreement occurs [Paras 24-26].

Limitations and Permissive Possession – Applicability of Article 65 – The Court applied Article 65 of the Limitation Act, noting that limitation starts from dispossession or overt hostility. Here, no proof of adverse conduct was shown, as the defendant's possession stemmed from the agreement's permissive basis, which remains until formal revocation [Paras 21, 23].

Restitution Under Void Contract – Section 65, Indian Contract Act – The Court held that a contract rendered void necessitates restitution. Since the agreement failed, the defendant must restore possession to the plaintiffs per Section 65. The principle of restitution applies where the defendant seeks to benefit from a void contract without fulfilling its terms [Para 30].

Decision: The appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgments of the Trial and Appellate Courts. The suit for possession is decreed, with instructions that the defendant vacate the property, as adverse possession is unsubstantiated. The principle of restitution under void contracts mandates possession reversion to the plaintiffs.

Bail in NDPS Cases – Medical Grounds – Section 37 of NDPS Act – Bail Granted with Conditions - The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of BNSS, citing critical health conditions requiring care outside the prison setting, while the prosecution opposed the application due to the commercial quantity involved and alleged serious misconduct involving misuse of position by police personnel. Given the petitioner’s critical medical needs, the court held that stringent conditions on release could meet the justice requirements and balance the health needs – Bail was granted, overriding Section 37’s rigor in this context, with specific restrictive and rehabilitative conditions on the petitioner [Paras 9-12].

Stringent Bail Conditions – Ensuring Fair Trial and Prevention of Offense Repetition - The court imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to submit detailed identification records and barred possession of firearms, emphasizing the significance of rehabilitation and reform as part of bail considerations – These conditions reflect the judiciary's intent to mitigate risks of witness tampering and recurrence of offenses, balancing bail with public safety concerns [Paras 14-19].

Discretion in Bail for Medical Reasons – Role of Proportionality and Necessity - Emphasizing the necessity for proportionality in bail conditions, the court aligned with Supreme Court observations that bail restrictions should not infringe rights disproportionately – The petitioner was held eligible for bail on medical grounds, subject to compliance with conditions supporting public and individual safety [Para 19].

Decision – Bail Granted – Given the petitioner’s critical medical condition and satisfaction of initial Section 37 conditions, the court granted bail with stringent restrictions to safeguard public safety and ensure the petitioner’s compliance.

Service Law - Succession Certificate – Legal Heirship – Section 372 of Indian Succession Act – Second Marriage Void – Succession Certificate Granted to First Wife – The applicant, the second wife, contested the succession certificate granted to the respondent, the first wife, regarding the movable properties and family pension of the deceased Gangadhar. The courts below found the second marriage void as it was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage. The court upheld the finding that the respondent is the sole legal heir entitled to the family pension [Paras 1-4, 16-22].

Pension Nomination – Rule 116 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules – Nomination Does Not Confer Legal Heir Status – The applicant claimed entitlement to the pension based on her nomination by the deceased husband. However, the court held that the nomination does not override legal heirship rights and cannot confer a legal status of a wife, especially when the second marriage is void under Hindu law. The court rejected the argument for equal division of the pension between both widows [Paras 10, 21-22].

Equitable Relief – Family Pension for 10 Years Already Received by Second Wife – No Further Pension Entitlement – The applicant had been receiving the family pension for 10 years to the exclusion of the respondent. The court ruled that the second wife, having received benefits unlawfully, was not entitled to further pension and directed the immediate release of the family pension to the first wife with arrears [Paras 30-33, 38-40].

Decision: Civil Revision Application Dismissed – The court upheld the concurrent decisions of the lower courts, confirming the first wife's status as the sole legal heir entitled to receive the family pension [Paras 34-41].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Appellant sought anticipatory bail in connection with allegations under Sections 368, 369, and 370 IPC regarding the abduction and trafficking of minors – Appellant contended that the children were voluntarily handed over to him through a Panchayat decision with formal adoption procedures – Held: The court found that the adoption was done with the consent of the complainant and no prima facie evidence supported the allegations of abduction or trafficking [Paras 14-17].

Delay in Filing Complaint – The court noted a delay of two years in filing the complaint, raising doubts about the genuineness of the allegations – The delay was linked to a potential dispute over the complainant’s intent to sell his late son's property [Paras 19-21].

Adoption Process – The adoption of the complainant’s grandson by the appellant, although not fully compliant with legal formalities, was agreed upon during a Panchayat meeting and witnessed by others, including the complainant himself – The court ruled that this did not constitute criminal intent under Sections 368, 369, or 370 IPC [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – The court set aside the order rejecting bail, directing the appellant to surrender and be released on bail with sureties – There was insufficient evidence to justify charges under Sections 368, 369, and 370 IPC [Paras 25-28].

Service Law - Age Relaxation – Experience as Anganwadi Worker – Validity of Certificates – The respondent, having applied for the post of Supervisor Grade-II (Female), claimed age relaxation based on her experience as an Anganwadi Worker – Her candidature was rejected by DSSSB on the ground of over-age due to conflicting certificates of experience – The Tribunal held that the certificates were valid, as the respondent had worked for both the Department of Women and Child Development and an NGO simultaneously – Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the rejection of her candidature was arbitrary and directed verification of the certificates [Paras 2-4].

Concurrent Employment – No Conflict in Experience – The Court accepted that the respondent’s employment as an Anganwadi Worker did not preclude her from working part-time with an NGO – This concurrent employment did not invalidate her experience as an Anganwadi Worker for the purpose of age relaxation [Para 6].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – The Tribunal’s order directing the petitioners to verify the respondent’s Anganwadi Worker certificate and to offer her appointment if found valid was upheld – No interference warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India [Paras 8-10].