Constitution of India – Article 226 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Quashing of FIR – Abuse of process of law – Misuse of provisions of the Act – Examination of scope and ambit of inherent powers of the High Court.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(x) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 447, 427, 506 – Offence of intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe – Absence of basic ingredients in the complaint – Quashing of proceedings justified.

Interpretation of “place within public view” – Distinction between “public place” and “place within public view” – Offence committed outside the building visible from public spaces constitutes a place within public view.

Misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Need for caution in invoking the Act – False and unsubstantiated FIR – Scope of Section 482 CrPC in dealing with such situations.

Quashing of FIR – Exercise of inherent powers by the High Court – Gross case of abuse of process of law – Protection granted to the petitioner – Impugned FIR quashed and set aside.

Compensation received by the complainant – Refund to the State as a result of quashing the complaint – State to take necessary actions for refund if not done already.

Order – Criminal Misc. Application allowed – Impugned FIR quashed and set aside – Subsequent proceedings arising from the same FIR also quashed – Compensation received by the complainant to be refunded to the State.

Grant of Customs Brokers License - Petitioner cleared written examination and second attempt of oral examination obtaining 51 marks - Respondents denied Customs Brokers License to candidates scoring less than 60 marks in the oral examination due to alleged change in rules - Previous writ petitions allowed, directing issuance of licenses to similarly situated candidates - Principle of equal treatment - Duty of Respondents to extend benefit of previous judgment to the present petitioner - Writ Petition allowed - Respondents directed to issue Customs Brokers License to the petitioner.(Para No. 2-10)

Compensation for gunshot injury - Negligence of Railway Protection Force - Writ petition filed seeking compensation for personal injury, trauma, and mental agony suffered by the petitioner due to a gunshot injury inflicted by a Railway Protection Force constable - Admitted incident and negligence of the constable - Railway contesting the matter - Jurisdictional issue raised - Maintainability of the writ petition challenged - Previous court order directing the respondents to provide compensation - Affidavit filed by respondents offering a specific amount as compensation. [Para 1]

Maintainability of writ petition - Statutory provision under the Railways Act, 1989 - Preliminary objection raised by respondents - Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 - Court examining whether the incident qualifies as an "untoward incident" under the Railways Act, 1989 - Meaning of "shoot out" - Court finding that the incident does not fall within the definition of an untoward incident - Court's previous order rejecting respondents' objection - Court having jurisdiction to determine compensation in the absence of a specific forum. [Para 11]

Quantum of compensation - Evaluation of injury and its consequences - Extent of trauma and suffering faced by the petitioner - Severity of the gunshot injury and subsequent major surgery - Permanent disability and ongoing physical and mental limitations - Financial burdens incurred - Compensation offered by respondents deemed inadequate - Court's responsibility to determine just and reasonable compensation - Need for higher compensation considering the petitioner's suffering. [Para 18]

Compensation components - Pain and suffering, future treatment, and loss of amenities - Need for a second surgery to rectify complications - Medical expert's acknowledgment of ongoing suffering - Estimated cost of surgery submitted by petitioner - Offered amount by respondents found insufficient - Court awarding a higher amount for pain and suffering and future treatment - Loss of amenities impacting petitioner's personal and family life - Court awarding a significant amount for loss of amenities. [Para 20]

Interest on compensation - Admitted negligence and delay in providing compensation - Petitioner's long wait for redressal - Court's observation on the Railway's duty to address grievances promptly - Court awarding interest on compensation from the date of the incident to compensate for the delay. [Para 21]

Directions - Respondents directed to pay total compensation amount with interest - Timeframe given for payment - Court emphasizing the importance of holding the Railway accountable and building citizen confidence - Acknowledgment of the petitioner's right to adequate compensation and redressal. [Para 24]

FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION – Deterrence against – Need for – Frivolous litigation poses a significant challenge to the judicial system, consuming valuable time and resources that could be better utilized for legitimate cases – Imposition of costs as a strong deterrent against vexatious, frivolous, and speculative litigations or defenses – Costs acting as an incentive for compliance with procedural laws, alternative dispute resolution, and providing indemnity to successful litigants – Balancing the right to access the court with the need to deter abusive litigation and maintain an efficient justice system. (Para 92-98)

COSTS – Imposition of – Exercise of judicial discretion – Judicial discretion in determining costs for frivolous litigations to be exercised judiciously, considering the facts, circumstances, and intentions of the parties involved – Costs serving as a retributive function leading to effective deterrents against abuse of the legal process. (Para 99-101)

JUDICIAL REFORMS – Frivolous litigation as a focal point – Frivolous litigation being a major obstacle to achieving a speedy and effective justice system – Need to explore ways of dealing with frivolous litigation-related issues through new policies and legal reforms. (Para 110)

GENUINE LITIGANTS – Protection of interests – Imposing costs as a safeguard to protect the interests of genuine litigants – Discouraging the filing of frivolous litigations or defenses, thereby allocating limited judicial resources to matters that are genuine and bona fide. (Para 99, 102, 113)

JUDICIAL RESTRAINT – Limits of – Frivolous litigants having a right to be heard – Judicial orders in frivolous cases required to prevent future abusive proceedings – Imposing reasonable sanctions and costs as a means to deter litigants before pursuing frivolous litigation – Preserving an efficient judicial process. (Para 113)

ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW – Filing of frivolous petitions as an abuse of process of law – Pleadings devoid of merit, absurdness, and scandalousness – Such abuse of the system affecting not only the responding party but also the public at large. (Para 106, 107, 109)

ACCESS TO JUSTICE – Fundamental right to access the court – Balance between the right of a person to freely access and pursue legal remedies and the need to redress abusive and frivolous litigation – Financial sanctions and deterrence as measures to de-clog the legal system and encourage meaningful and meritorious litigation. (Para 116)

JUDICIAL DISCRETION – Efficient utilization of judicial time – Investing judicial time in meaningful and meritorious disputes rather than frivolous litigation – Judicial discretion required to strike a balance between free access to justice and striking out frivolous litigation at the threshold. (Para 100, 102, 105)

FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION – Role of bar council – Need for the Bar Council of India to come forward and assist the bench in dealing with frivolous litigations – Spending more judicial time on adjudicating meritorious disputes speedily and efficiently. (Para 104)

JUDICIAL EDUCATION – Importance of maintaining the integrity of judicial education institutes – Frivolous litigations targeting government authorities, institutions, and past Supreme Court judges as an abuse of the process of law – Courts not tolerating such abuse and seeking assistance in dealing with frivolous litigation. (Para 104)

JUDICIAL REFORMS – Action against frivolous litigants – Volume of frivolous litigation posing a challenge to the overburdened judiciary – Need for appropriate rules or laws to deal with such limitations and initiate a new paradigm. (Para 118)

DISMISSAL OF PETITIONS – Frivolous petitions devoid of merit and abuse of process of law – Dismissal of petitions with costs as a deterrent – Costs to be deposited within a specified period – Compliance to be filed with the registry. (Para 120)

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Charge-sheet and Summoning Order – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Lack of reasoning and application of mind in the impugned orders – Seriousness of summoning an accused in a criminal case – Judicial scrutiny of evidence – Importance of Magistrate’s application of mind before summoning – Apex Court’s precedents on taking cognizance – Cryptic nature of the impugned order – Need for sufficient indication of the Magistrate’s application of mind – Setting aside of the impugned order – Opportunity for the court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. (Paragraphs 1 to 13)

Criminal Law – Offence and Offender – Distinction – Cognizance of offences by Magistrates – Cognizance taken of cases, not persons – Exercise of judicial mind while passing orders of summoning – Veracity of allegations as a question of evidence – Court’s role in determining if the respondents are answerable before the criminal court – Necessity of clear application of mind to the facts constituting commission of an offence – Absence of formal or reasoned orders at the stage of Section 190/204 Cr.P.C. – Requirement of sufficient indication of the Magistrate’s application of mind. (Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11)

Criminal Procedure – Summoning an Accused – Prima facie case – Examination of allegations and evidence – Judicial scrutiny by the Magistrate – Competence to consider inherent improbabilities in the complaint or evidence – Discretionary exercise of judicial mind by the Magistrate – Substitution of the Magistrate’s discretion by higher courts – Seriousness of summoning an accused – Criminal law not set into motion as a matter of course – Need for a well-reasoned order with the application of judicial mind. (Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11)

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed to address concerns regarding drug and alcohol de-addiction centers in India – Importance of the issue in eroding public health and social fabric – Government’s approach through supply reduction and demand reduction – Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MoSJE) implementing schemes for prevention and assistance – Need for regulation and monitoring of private rehabilitation centers. (Para 1 and 2)

Report of the amicus curiae highlighting flaws in the current approach to rehabilitation – Emphasis on evidence-based medical practices and consensual treatment – Need for regulation and monitoring of private rehabilitation centers. (Para 6)

Initiatives undertaken by the Government of India – Comprehensive survey on substance use – National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction (NAPDDR) – Nasha Mukt Bharat Abhiyaan (NMBA) – Transparency measures and monitoring of NGOs. (Para 9 and 10)

Court’s satisfaction with the government’s efforts – Acknowledgment of the petitioner’s contribution – Importance of sustained attention and a multifaceted approach – Disposal of the petition while urging the government to continue its efforts to combat substance abuse. (Para 12 and 13)

Criminal Procedure - Bail - Regular Bail - Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Petitioner involved in FIR No.914 dated 22.11.2022, registered under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 506 IPC (Sections 307, 325, and 326 IPC added later) - Petitioner in custody for over 6 months - Allegations against petitioner emerged in supplementary statement of complainant after 3½ months - Co-accused previously granted regular bail - None of 15 witnesses examined yet - Petitioner not involved in any other case - Trial likely to take considerable time - Court finds further incarceration of petitioner unnecessary.

Conditions for Bail - Conditions imposed on petitioner - Not to tamper with evidence - Not to intimidate prosecution witnesses - Mandatory appearance before trial Court - Not to commit similar offences - Not to coerce or threaten individuals acquainted with case facts - Not to misuse liberty - Furnishing address and mobile number to trial Court - Not to leave the country without prior permission - Trial Court may impose additional conditions if necessary.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 25F, 25G & 25H – Violation alleged – Worker failing to prove completion of 240 days of service in a calendar year – Court’s considered opinion that violation of Section 25F does not arise – No retrenchment of worker under Sections 25G & 25H – Muster roll employee paid wages as a daily wager due to administrative exigencies – Sections 25G & 25H not attracted – No entitlement to reinstatement. (Para 65 to 66)

High Courts’ Jurisdiction – Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India – Limitation on interference with findings of fact – Writ Court not acting as an appellate court – Interference permissible only in cases of error of law apparent on the face of the record – Findings of fact by inferior courts or tribunals not to be reopened or questioned – Scope of supervisory jurisdiction. (Para 67 to 70)

Writ of Certiorari – Issuance – Correction of error of law – Error must be manifest on the face of the record – Error of law apparent when conclusion based on obvious misinterpretation of statutory provision or in disregard of it – Finding of fact by tribunal not open to challenge unless perverse or based on no evidence – Interference permissible in case of illegality or violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 71 to 73)

Interference by High Court – Findings of fact by Labour Court – Conditions for interference – Award must be perverse, based on wrong legal principles, or not considering relevant facts – Adequacy or sufficiency of evidence within exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal – Writ Court must record reasons for reconsideration of a finding of fact – Absence of defects in findings precludes entry into factual disputes. (Para 75 to 76)

Supreme Court precedents – Judicial pronouncements dealing with High Courts’ supervisory jurisdiction – Limitation on interference by writ courts with factual findings – Court’s adherence to principles established in earlier judgments. (Para 78 to 79)

Criminal Law - Regular Bail - Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail - Accused in custody for 2 years, 8 months, and 3 days - FIR registered under Sections 114, 216, 302, 120-B, and 34 IPC; Sections 30 and 25 of the Arms Act - Recovery of a different firearm from the petitioner compared to the alleged weapon used in the offense - Eight co-accused already granted regular bail by High Court and trial Court - Material witnesses not supporting prosecution's case - Petitioner on bail in other cases - Citing precedent Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. (Para 1, 2)

Grant of Bail - Factors considered - Role of accused in the case, possibility of fleeing jurisdiction, and criminal antecedents - Petitioner's long custody period, bail in other cases, and lack of support from material witnesses taken into account - Trial likely to take considerable time - Further incarceration not serving any useful purpose. (Para 6)

Bail Conditions - Conditions imposed on petitioner - Not to tamper with evidence during trial - Not to pressurize/intimidate prosecution witnesses - Mandatory appearance in trial Court - Not to commit similar offenses - Not to coerce or threaten witnesses - No misuse of liberty - Furnishing address and mobile number to the trial Court - No leaving the country without Court permission. (Para 7)

Observations - Limited scope - Observations made in the present proceedings not indicative of the merits of the case - Trial to proceed independently - State's liberty to seek bail cancellation in case of any breach of conditions. (Para 9)