Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Business Dispute – The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR on the grounds that the dispute was of a civil nature arising out of a long-standing business relationship with the complainant. The petitioner contended that the complainant was attempting to use the criminal justice system to settle a commercial dispute, which involved transactions of crores of rupees over several years. The court noted that the existence of a business relationship without prior complaints undermined the credibility of the criminal allegations. The court emphasized that the FIR did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence but rather a commercial relationship that had deteriorated. [Paras 1-10]

Abuse of Process – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – The court highlighted that criminal prosecution should not be used to settle business disputes. The FIR, registered after an inordinate delay of over five years, did not contain allegations constituting the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. The court referred to precedents where it was held that mere breach of contract without mens rea does not constitute a criminal offence. [Paras 13-20]

Decision – FIR Quashed – The court exercised its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR, noting that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The court underscored the importance of preventing the criminal justice system from being misused to resolve civil disputes. [Paras 22-28]
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction and Sentence – Criminal Revision – Petitioner issued a cheque to the complainant, which was dishonoured due to “Account Closed” – Contention that the cheque was issued as surety for a debt owed by her husband – No legally enforceable debt directly between petitioner and complainant – Trial and appellate courts found the petitioner guilty – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, directing the petitioner to pay compensation in lieu of imprisonment. [Paras 1-25]

Issuance of Cheque – Legal Presumption – Section 139 of N.I. Act – Presumption of cheque issued for discharge of debt or liability – Burden on accused to rebut presumption – Petitioner failed to provide credible evidence to support claim that cheque was issued as surety for husband’s debt – Non-reply to statutory notice considered adverse inference. [Para 12-17]

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – Revisional court should not reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or unreasonable – No manifest error of law or gross injustice found in lower courts’ judgments – High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact. [Para 21-22]

Decision – Modification of Sentence – Conviction under Section 138 of N.I. Act upheld – Petitioner directed to pay compensation of Rs.76,000 within one month in lieu of three months’ simple imprisonment – Failure to comply will result in execution of original sentence. [Para 24-25]

Educational Admission – Cancellation due to invalid Non-Creamy Layer Certificate – Challenge under Article 226 – Petitioner’s admission to MBBS course at Respondent No. 4 college, based on Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, cancelled after enquiry revealed misrepresentation by Petitioner’s father regarding marital status and spouse’s income – Enquiry conducted due to writ petition by another MBBS aspirant alleging misuse of OBC reservations – Petitioner continued studies under interim order from this Court [Paras 1-7].

Misrepresentation and False Information – Findings by Enquiry Committee – Petitioner’s father misrepresented marital status and spouse’s income on certificate application, leading to undue benefit under OBC quota – Enquiry confirmed father’s income alone under threshold but combined income with spouse would breach OBC income limit, affecting eligibility – Court upholds cancellation of certificate and consequent admission cancellation [Paras 11-18].

Balance of Convenience – Issuance of Degree – Despite unfair means in obtaining admission, Court permits retention of MBBS degree due to completion under interim orders, highlighting importance of not wasting medical education already imparted – Orders Petitioner to be considered as Open Category student, with directions to pay fee difference and a cost to Respondent No. 4 [Paras 19].

Decision and Relief Granted – The Court upheld the cancellation of the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate and MBBS admission but acknowledged the Petitioner’s completion of the degree under interim orders – Ordered the Petitioner to be treated as an Open Category student, with directions to pay the fee difference and a cost of Rs. 50,000 to the hospital – Recognized the need to maintain the integrity of admissions while balancing the national interest in retaining medical professionals [Paras 18-20].

Criminal Law - Joinder of Additional Accused - Criminal Law – Appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 – High Court’s Dismissal of Appeal Challenging Addition of Accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C – Court upheld Trial Court’s Order Adding Accused Based on Eyewitness Testimony – Plea of Alibi Considered and Rejected – Appellant’s Presence and Involvement Established through Multiple Witness Statements and CCTV Footage Identification – No Illegality or Perversity Found in Trial Court’s Order – Appeal Dismissed. [Paras 1-15]

Section 319 Cr.P.C – Application and Scope – Supreme Court Guidelines Reiterated – Power to Add Accused should be Exercised Sparingly and with Higher Degree of Satisfaction – Evidence Before Court Must be Strong and Reliable, Leading to Conviction if Unrebutted – Court Emphasized Proper Scrutiny of Evidence before Adding Accused under Section 319. [Paras 7-11]

Plea of Alibi – Burden of Proof – High Threshold Required to Prove Alibi – Evidence must Exclude Possibility of Presence at Crime Scene – Mere Probable Presence Elsewhere Insufficient – Accused’s Alibi Unsupported by Corroborative Evidence, thus Rejected by Court. [Paras 4, 6, 9]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – Appeal is Dismissed Based on Strong Evidence Against Appellant – Eyewitness Testimony and CCTV Identification Corroborated by Multiple Witness Statements – No Fault in Trial Court’s Decision to Add Appellant as Accused – Trial Court’s Order Affirmed. [Para 15]

Arbitration Law – Arbitral Award – Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appellant challenged arbitral award and Section 34 dismissal – Arbitral award partially allowed claims of claimant based on supplementary agreement – Appellant argued supplementary agreement required state approval, was not granted, and breaches were based on it – Arbitrator’s findings on readiness and willingness, delays, and defaults by both parties upheld – Court found no patent illegality or perversity – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-33]

Contract Law – Time of Essence – Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act – Arbitral award addressed whether time was essence of contract – Despite contractual stipulation, extended delivery period indicated time not essence – Supplementary agreement signed with mutual consent – Claimant’s failure to act per supplementary agreement noted – No basis to invalidate arbitrator's findings. [Paras 17-19]

Judicial Review – Limited Scope under Section 37 – Jurisdiction under Section 37 does not extend beyond Section 34 limitations – Court emphasized minimal judicial interference – Arbitrator’s construction of contract and evidence upheld unless patently illegal or perverse – Appeal did not meet threshold for interference. [Paras 26-32]

Decision: Held: Appeal dismissed – No interference with arbitral award or Section 34 order warranted – Findings of arbitral tribunal supported by evidence and contractual terms – No patent error or illegality established. [Para 33]

Service Law – Pay Revision and Recovery Notice – Petitioner, initially appointed as a daily wager and later receiving a fixed salary, challenged the recovery of alleged excess salary based on audit objections. High Court quashed the impugned order and recovery notice, directing proper pay revision and payment of arrears [Paras 1-12].

Procedure under Articles 14, 16, and 226 – Petitioner’s rights under constitutional provisions were examined, focusing on the due process for salary recovery and pay revision – Court emphasized the importance of following established procedures and providing fair opportunity for representation [Paras 3-10].

Decision – Petition allowed – Held – Impugned order and recovery notice set aside – Respondents directed to revise the petitioner’s pay and disburse arrears in accordance with established procedures [Paras 11-12].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Petitioner challenged the dismissal of her application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint filed by her mother, Smt. Saraswathamma – The suit sought cancellation of gift and partition deeds and declarations against sale deeds executed in 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2010 – Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the issues could only be adjudicated after a full-fledged trial [Paras 1-16].

Limitation – Barred by Time – The suit was filed in 2019, 15 years after the gift deed and more than a decade after the other deeds – Saraswathamma did not plead fraud or undue influence in the execution of the gift deed – Court found the suit was clearly barred by limitation as it was filed well beyond the three-year period allowed for challenging such deeds [Paras 9-14].

Recurring Cause of Action – Trial Court’s reasoning of recurring cause of action due to partition was found untenable – Saraswathamma did not seek partition but only declarations regarding the deeds – Court held that the concept of recurring cause of action did not apply [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Plaint filed by Saraswathamma stands rejected – Civil Revision Petition allowed [Paras 18-19].
 

Criminal Law – Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner (accused No. 3) sought bail in a case involving allegations under the Dowry Prohibition Act and IPC, including dowry harassment, assault, and abetment of sexual assault by the father-in-law (accused No. 2) – Petitioner argued false implication, delay in filing FIR, and absence of injuries as reasons for bail [Paras 1-4].

Delay in Lodging FIR and Investigation Status – Incident occurred on 4th February and 9th March 2024, but FIR lodged on 15th March 2024 – Court noted no materials produced by prosecution to support allegations against petitioner – Petitioner, a 51-year-old woman, had been in judicial custody since 16th March 2024 [Paras 3, 6].

Conditions for Bail – Petitioner granted bail with conditions to ensure attendance in court, prevent tampering with evidence, and ensure no commission of similar offences – Bail granted on bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount [Paras 5-7].

Decision – Petition allowed – Petitioner enlarged on bail with conditions to safeguard against potential flight risk or interference with prosecution witnesses – Directions given to Trial Court for verification of sureties and addresses before accepting the bail bond [Paras 7-7].

Labour Law – Regularization of Service – Petitioners, employed as binders and printers on a piece-rate basis, sought regularization after working for over 22 years – Government rejected their claim citing lack of direct employment records – Petitioners contended employment was continuous despite being through contractors to circumvent direct employment evidence [Paras 1-7].

Evidence of Continuous Employment – Petitioners provided salary and attendance records, inspection reports, and affidavits indicating continuous employment from 2000 to 2023, albeit through different contractors – Government acknowledged petitioners' service but cited a lack of continuous employment between 2011 and 2015 [Paras 8-19].

Supreme Court and High Court Precedents – Petitioners relied on judgments in Nagendra S.G. and Sheo Narain Nagar cases to assert their right to regularization – Court considered the principle of granting monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement from Ranbir Singh case due to the closure of the printing press [Paras 20-33].

Decision – Writ Petition disposed of – Petitioners entitled to monetary compensation of Rs. 25,000 per year of service from 2000 to 2010 and Rs. 50,000 per year from 2016 to 2023 – Compensation to be paid within two months in lieu of reinstatement and regularization, serving as full settlement of all claims [Paras 34-38].