Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Offence under Section 370(A) IPC – The petitioner, accused as a customer in a brothel case, sought quashing of the proceedings against him under Sections 370(3) and 370(A) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act – The Court observed that for Section 370(A) to apply, the customer must have knowledge that the victim was trafficked – Held: The proceedings for Section 370(A) IPC against the petitioner were upheld, as there was sufficient prima facie evidence – Petition partly allowed, quashing proceedings under Section 370(3) IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Act, but continuing prosecution under Section 370(A) IPC [Paras 8, 12, 13, 17].

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act – Sections 3 and 5 – Non-applicability to Customers – The Court noted that Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act are aimed at brothel keepers and those procuring women for prostitution, not customers – Held: The petitioner, being a customer, is not liable to be prosecuted under these sections – Proceedings quashed for these offences [Paras 10-12, 15].

Interpretation of Section 370(A) IPC – Customer’s Liability – The Court distinguished between the acts of trafficking and the role of customers – Held: The petitioner was found at the scene of the offence and could be prosecuted under Section 370(A)(2) IPC for engaging in sexual exploitation of trafficked persons – Petition dismissed in this regard [Paras 7, 14, 16].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Proceedings under Section 370(3) IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act quashed – Proceedings under Section 370(A) IPC to continue​.

Writ - Security Cover – Threat Perception – Discretion of Security Agencies – Petitioner, a political leader, sought security cover citing threat perception – Previous petition directed the authorities to consider threat perception, but the respondents denied security based on reports from field agencies – Held: The assessment of threat perception is within the domain of the Security Review Coordination Committee, which relies on field agency reports – Courts cannot interfere with security assessments unless there is clear evidence of procedural irregularity [Paras 10, 13, 14].

Re-assessment of Threat Perception – Election Period – Jurisdiction of Court – During the petition, the petitioner contended that his threat perception had been assessed only for District Jammu and not for the entire Union Territory (UT) of Jammu & Kashmir, where elections were being held – Held: The court directed the Security Review Coordination Committee to reassess the petitioner's threat perception for the entire Union Territory during the election period – This direction was issued due to the peculiar facts of the case, but was not to be treated as a precedent [Paras 15, 16].

Role of Courts in Security Decisions – Judicial Review Limitations – Petitioner argued that the rejection of security was arbitrary – Held: The court reiterated that it does not have the jurisdiction to substitute its opinion for that of the Security Review Coordination Committee, which has the expertise and inputs to make security-related decisions [Paras 14, 16].

Decision: Petition disposed of – The Security Review Coordination Committee directed to reassess the petitioner's threat perception for the entire Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir in light of the upcoming elections – No costs [Paras 17].

Jurisdiction – Guardianship of Minor – Section 9 of Guardians and Wards Act – The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the guardianship suit before the Ranchi Family Court, arguing that the minor ordinarily resides in Delhi – The trial court rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, stating that jurisdiction was a mixed question of law and fact to be determined after trial – Held: Section 9(1) mandates that the court having jurisdiction is where the minor ordinarily resides, and the minor’s residence in Delhi was an admitted fact – The trial court erred in dismissing the application – Petition allowed, trial court order set aside [Paras 24, 32-33, 55-56].

Jurisdiction – Ordinary Residence of Minor – Admitted Facts – The respondent had previously withdrawn a guardianship petition from Delhi Family Court after admitting that the minor’s ordinary residence was in Shahdara, Delhi – Despite this, the respondent filed a fresh petition in Ranchi, which the petitioner challenged on jurisdictional grounds – Held: When the ordinary residence of the minor is admitted, no inquiry into facts is required, and the trial court’s decision to relegate the issue to trial was erroneous – Jurisdiction lies with the Delhi court [Paras 56-59].

Mixed Questions of Law and Fact – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – The trial court dismissed the petitioner’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that jurisdiction involved mixed questions of law and fact – Held: Where facts, such as the minor’s residence, are admitted, there is no need for an inquiry or trial – The trial court wrongly dismissed the application, and the order is quashed [Paras 63-64, 68].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of the Constitution – The High Court exercised its powers under Article 227 to set aside the lower court’s erroneous decision, emphasizing the admitted facts and improper interpretation of the Guardians and Wards Act – Held: The trial court misapplied Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, failing to appreciate the admitted facts and the correct legal position [Paras 62-67].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order dated 10.04.2024 of the Additional Family Court-II, Ranchi, in O.M. Case No. 539 of 2023 quashed – Respondent given liberty to file a fresh petition in a court having jurisdiction – No costs [Paras 69-71].

Employment Law – Ex-servicemen Reservation – Writ petition challenging the cancellation of appointment by State Bank of India (SBI) – Petitioner, an ex-serviceman, secured employment as a primary teacher under the West Bengal Board of Primary Education after availing of ex-servicemen reservation benefits – Petitioner applied for another job in SBI under ex-servicemen category without disclosing his existing employment – Bank canceled his appointment as per the recruitment advertisement and clause (4) of the Office Memorandum prohibiting dual benefit for ex-servicemen – Held: The petitioner’s appointment was rightly canceled, as he violated the declaration requirements for ex-servicemen benefits [Paras 5, 10-15].

Ex-servicemen Status – Dual Employment Benefits – Petitioner admitted in his affidavit that he had already secured employment in a government-aided primary school, but claimed his employment did not fall under “Central Government/Public Sector Undertaking” jobs – Court found the petitioner had benefited from ex-servicemen reservations once, and his status ceased for further re-employment as per the Office Memorandum – Held: Appointment cancellation upheld as per the applicable rules [Paras 3-4, 12-15].

False Declaration – Cancellation of Appointment – Petitioner failed to disclose his employment as a primary teacher in his affidavit submitted to the Bank, despite being aware of the rule prohibiting ex-servicemen from claiming multiple reservations – The omission in the affidavit led to the cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment – Held: The cancellation of the appointment was valid, and the writ petition was without merit [Paras 7, 13-15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – The appointment cancellation by State Bank of India upheld – All connected applications disposed of – No order as to costs [Paras 15-17].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Alleged Fraudulent Sale of Property – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in relation to Crime No. 1773/2023, where they were accused of executing sale deeds despite a previous court decree favoring the complainant – Petitioners argued that the case arose from a civil dispute, with no criminal intention, and detention was unnecessary – The prosecution submitted that the sale deeds misled the court and that interrogation of the accused was necessary for the investigation – Held: A serious investigation is necessary, but detention is not required – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 2-7].

Anticipatory Bail – Conditions for Granting Bail – Court allowed the anticipatory bail applications but imposed strict conditions, including regular appearance before the investigating officer, surrender of passports, and restrictions on influencing witnesses or leaving the jurisdiction – Held: Bail granted on execution of bonds with two solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, with conditions to ensure cooperation in the investigation [Paras 7-8].

Decision:

Bail applications allowed – Petitioners directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks – Bail granted on execution of bonds for Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties each, subject to conditions regarding appearance, travel restrictions, and non-interference with witnesses or evidence [Paras 7-8].

Service Law - Social Forestry Workers – Claim for Permanency – Kalelkar Award – Writ Petitions by Social Forestry Division challenging the Industrial Court’s orders granting permanency to daily wage workers under the Kalelkar Award – Petitioners contended that workers were engaged seasonally and not entitled to permanency as no sanctioned posts existed – Held: Industrial Court erred in granting straightaway permanency; instead, the workers’ cases should be considered under government schemes for regularization of daily wage workers as per the Government Resolutions – Cases remitted for consideration of absorption under Government Resolutions from 1996 and 2012 [Paras 1-4, 22-25, 30].

Grant of Permanency – Industrial Court’s Power – Umadevi Case Law – Petitioners argued that as per the Constitution Bench ruling in Umadevi, workers cannot claim regularization without following due process, and the Industrial Court overstepped by granting permanency – Held: Industrial Court’s order for regularization of casual workers without sanctioned posts contravenes Umadevi principles – Court referred to Government schemes that provided for absorption of workers after 5 years of service, requiring re-evaluation under those schemes – Permissible to grant absorption as per applicable schemes, but not direct regularization [Paras 17-19, 21, 22, 29].**

Kalelkar Award – Scope and Application – CRTE Status vs. Permanency – The Industrial Court granted permanency by applying the Kalelkar Award, which requires five years of continuous service for CRTE status – Held: The Kalelkar Award confers CRTE status and does not guarantee permanent government posts – The workers should have been granted CRTE status and considered for regularization under existing schemes, but not outright permanency – Industrial Court order modified accordingly [Paras 10-12, 22-25].**

Regularization Schemes – Government Resolutions of 1996, 2012, and 2018 – Court observed that several Government Resolutions provide for the regularization of daily wage workers completing 5 years of service between 1994 and 2004 – Directed petitioners to re-evaluate workers’ claims for regularization based on these resolutions, without insisting on conditions like active service in 2012 for those terminated in 2002 – Court outlined the method for calculating service benefits, continuity, and retirement benefits for eligible workers [Paras 23-30].

Premature Termination – Impact of Interim Orders – Petitioners argued that the workers’ continued service was due to the status-quo order, thus should not count towards permanency – Held: Interim orders did not prevent petitioners from terminating workers’ services – Workers continued in service for over a decade, justifying consideration for regularization – Termination during pending complaints did not negate their right to claim benefits under the regularization schemes [Paras 14-15, 16].

Decision: Petitions partly allowed – Industrial Court’s direction for permanency set aside – Petitioners to consider workers for regularization under relevant Government Resolutions – Cases remitted for re-evaluation – Eligible workers to be absorbed and granted consequential benefits, including monetary benefits, retirement benefits, and continuity of service [Paras 30-31].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of Rape – Petitioners sought quashment of the FIR and charge sheet on the grounds that the prosecutrix is a consenting adult and the case has been amicably settled – Held: Offenses under Section 376 IPC (rape) are serious in nature and cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, as they have a profound impact on society – The court must be cautious when using its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, especially in cases of heinous crimes like rape [Paras 7-8, 16-17].

Compromise in Heinous Crimes – Non-Compoundable Offenses – Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that offenses such as rape cannot be compromised even if the parties have settled – Crimes like rape affect the dignity and sanctity of women, and the court emphasized that these offenses are not merely private matters but affect public interest as well – Held: The petition for quashing was dismissed, and the court underscored that compromise does not mitigate or nullify the charges in such cases [Paras 9-13, 15-16].

Decision:

Petition under Section 482 of CrPC dismissed – Criminal proceedings will continue, as offenses of rape cannot be quashed based on compromise between the parties, given their serious nature and societal impact [Para 17].

Money Laundering – Corruption Allegations – PMLA Proceedings – Arrest Upheld – The petitioner, a former Forest Minister of Punjab, challenged his arrest under the PMLA, claiming violations of Section 19 and arguing that he had cooperated with the investigation. The Directorate of Enforcement arrested the petitioner for laundering proceeds of crime from bribes related to forest department activities, including issuing No Objection Certificates (NOCs), officer transfers, and illegal tree felling – Evidence, including witness statements and records of disproportionate assets, supported the allegations of money laundering – The court found the arrest was lawful, rejecting claims of procedural violations – Petition for quashing of arrest was dismissed [Paras 6.1-8.4].

Civil Law – Recovery of Money – Execution of Promissory Note – Appellant contested the execution of the promissory note by the deceased Ramachandran, alleging it was fabricated – Trial court dismissed the suit for lack of conclusive proof, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, holding that oral evidence of witnesses substantiated the claim despite adverse expert opinion – Appellants argued the appellate court wrongly disregarded the expert opinion and failed to properly assess the evidence – Held: Oral evidence, corroborated by other factors, sufficiently established the validity of the promissory note, and the expert opinion was considered a weak piece of evidence – First appellate court's judgment upheld, and second appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 11-26].

Presumption of Execution – Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Legal heirs of the deceased Ramachandran denied the execution of the promissory note – Plaintiff unable to claim presumption under Section 118 of the Act as the signature was disputed – Burden of proof shifted to plaintiff to establish that the deceased executed the promissory note – The trial court held the plaintiff did not meet this burden; however, the appellate court found the oral evidence provided by the plaintiff's witnesses sufficient to prove execution [Paras 11, 12, 16, 21].

Evidence – Adverse Inference – Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act – Trial court invoked Section 114(g) against the plaintiff for withholding expert opinion that was unfavorable – Appellate court found that invoking Section 114(g) was incorrect as the expert’s opinion was available to the court and could have been marked as evidence if deemed necessary – Held: Plaintiff was not obligated to rely on expert opinion, and oral evidence took precedence under Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act, allowing witnesses familiar with the signature to testify [Paras 13-20].

Remand Request – Defendants sought remand to trial court for re-appreciation of expert evidence – Held: As the expert opinion was already available, the defendants had the opportunity to submit it in their defense – The appellate court’s decision not to rely on it, and its focus on oral evidence, was deemed appropriate – Remand was unnecessary as the appellate court had sufficiently dealt with the matter based on the existing evidence [Paras 27-29].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 24.08.2021 of the first appellate court confirmed – No costs [Para 30].