Criminal Law – Quashment of FIR and Charge-Sheet – Applications seeking to quash the FIR, charge-sheet, and criminal proceedings against the applicants – Allegations involve assault and use of criminal force against police personnel by prisoners in a temporary prison – Applicants argue procedural improprieties and lack of specific roles attributed to them – Court rejects the applications, finding sufficient material to proceed with charges under IPC [Paras 1-22].

Procedure under Prisons Act – Superintendent’s Authority – Contention that the incident should be handled as a prison offence under the Prisons Act and Punishments Rules, requiring Superintendent’s action rather than lodging an FIR – Court clarifies that serious offences under IPC committed within a prison do not preclude the registration of an FIR and police investigation – Provisions of Prisons Act do not bar the police from investigating cognizable offences [Paras 23-45].

Overlap between Prison Offences and IPC Offences – Analysis of the overlap between acts constituting prison offences under Section 45 of the Prisons Act and offences under the IPC – Court finds that while some acts overlap, they do not preclude separate charges under IPC where elements differ or where more severe penalties are involved – Rule 25 of Punishments Rules permits prosecution for certain offences under IPC committed within prison premises [Paras 33-43].

Decision: Applications dismissed – Interim relief extended till 8th July 2024 – Court finds no procedural impropriety in the registration of FIR, investigation by police, and Magistrate’s cognizance of IPC offences committed within the prison [Paras 46-50].

Interim Order – Vacation Request – Application filed for vacating interim order dated 01.03.2023 – Respondent argued interim order halted significant public projects involving national security – Court reviewed necessity of interim relief versus public interest [Paras 1-13].

Public Interest and National Security – Judicial Review in Tender Matters – Emphasis on minimal judicial intervention in tender-related disputes involving state contracts – Supreme Court’s guidelines on preserving public interest and avoiding unnecessary interference reiterated [Paras 14-25].

Decision – Interim Order Modified – Held – Interim order modified to allow respondents to proceed with tender processes subject to the final outcome of the writ petition – Public interest and national security considerations prioritized – Detailed reasoning of Supreme Court judgments on judicial restraint and public interest cited [Paras 26-38].

Service Law – Misappropriation and Disciplinary Action – Circular Providing Amnesty – Petitioner challenged the dismissal show cause notice and sought relief under Circular No.1/2017 granting amnesty for certain misdemeanors – Petitioner had a history of misdemeanors, leading to multiple punishments – Court found the circular was misused by employees to evade serious consequences for repeated misconduct – Circular aimed at reform was found to conflict with principles of public accountability and legal discipline [Paras 1-19]. 

Circular No.1/2017 and its Legal Sustainability – The circular allowed bus conductors involved in misdemeanors to avoid dismissal by paying fines – Court deemed it illogical, irrational, and legally unsustainable as it indirectly condoned corruption and lacked a basis in the Discipline and Appeal Rules of MSRTC – Court highlighted the need for legal discipline and public accountability over unchecked amnesty [Paras 20-29]. 

Withdrawal of Circular and Introduction of New Circular – Respondent MSRTC introduced Circular No. X-1 dated 18/04/2024, modifying the previous circular by limiting the amnesty to one or two occasions – Court scrutinized the legality of both circulars and emphasized that any change in punishment procedures must be codified in the Discipline and Appeal Rules to be legally enforceable [Paras 30-43]. 

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Court held that the petitioner's reliance on the 2017 circular was untenable and that the modified circular still lacked legal backing in the absence of amendments to the Discipline and Appeal Rules – The MSRTC was directed to enforce disciplinary actions strictly as per the codified rules without undue leniency [Paras 44-47]. 

Juvenile Justice – Applicability of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 – Appellant, a juvenile at the time of the offence, convicted under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act – Plea of juvenility raised for the first time in appeal – Trial Court did not consider juvenility – High Court directed an inquiry by the Juvenile Justice Board – Inquiry confirmed appellant's juvenility – Appellant entitled to benefits under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, even after becoming an adult – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant ordered to be released as detention period exceeded three years, the maximum for a juvenile [Paras 1-40].

Benefit of Juvenility – Retrospective Application – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, applied retrospectively in pending cases – Juvenile at the time of offence entitled to the Act's benefits despite age at the time of conviction – Appeal allowed without considering merits due to appellant's status as juvenile at offence time [Paras 18-22, 30-38].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2022 and 05.03.2022 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Munger, in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2004 set aside. Appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
 

Review Jurisdiction – Grounds for Review – Petitioner seeks review of dismissal order, arguing substantial questions of law were raised but not considered by the court – Review petition examined under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Review permissible on grounds of discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record, or other sufficient reason [Paras 1-22].

Error Apparent on Face of Record – Definition and Scope – Review jurisdiction confined to patent errors not requiring elaborate argument or reappreciation of evidence – Error must be self-evident and not subject to different interpretations or extensive reasoning – Prior case laws including Parsion Devi and Lily Thomas reiterated [Paras 10-17].

Previous Adjudication – No New Grounds – Petitioner’s arguments largely reiterate points already considered and rejected in the initial appeal – No new evidence or error apparent demonstrated – Review petition found to be an attempt to reargue the case on merits [Paras 19-23].

Judicial Precedents – Analysis and Application – Review jurisdiction principles from Apex Court judgments applied – Review not an appeal in disguise, meant to correct manifest errors only – Precedents from Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon, S. Nagaraj, and others discussed to emphasize limited scope of review [Paras 15-21].

Decision:

Review Petition Dismissed – No grounds for review found within the ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Original order dated 10.10.2023 upheld, dismissing the appeal for lack of substantial questions of law – Petitioner's arguments considered repetitive and unconvincing [Paras 23-24].

Bail – Cancellation – Suppression of Material Facts – The respondent Indira Kumari @ Tanu secured bail by suppressing material evidence against her, specifically the statements of last seen witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The bail was granted under the false premise that there was no evidence against her. This concealment and misrepresentation amounted to an abuse of judicial process. The court, upon discovering this suppression, recalled the bail order dated 07.03.2024 and directed her arrest. [Paras 1-22]

Principle of Parity – Negative Parity – Bail Application – The co-accused Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj sought bail on the ground of parity with Indira Kumari. The court rejected their bail applications, emphasizing that the principle of parity is based on positive equality and cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality. The court highlighted that parity cannot be claimed when the initial bail was obtained by suppressing material facts. [Paras 23-30]

Decision – Bail Cancelled – Bail Applications Rejected – The bail granted to Indira Kumari on 07.03.2024 was recalled and cancelled. The bail applications of Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj were rejected. Directions were issued for the immediate arrest and detention of Indira Kumari. [Paras 22, 30-31]
 

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]
 

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].