Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of data theft and violation of non-disclosure agreement – Former employees accused of stealing data from the complainant company and working with a rival company – FIR registered under IPC Sections 408, 504, 506 and IT Act Sections 66, 66C – Internal investigation report indicating foul play by the petitioners – Issue of whether the FIR should be quashed.

Held:

The court, after considering the submissions and perusing the material on record, found that there were seriously disputed questions of fact in the case.

The allegations of data theft and violation of the non-disclosure agreement are significant concerns in the digital age, and such cases need to be addressed promptly.

The court held that the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage of the proceedings, considering the ongoing investigation and the grave allegations involved.

The petitioners were reserved the liberty to avail themselves of any available legal remedy at the appropriate time.

(Para 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13)

Quashing of FIR - Sections 306, 498A, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code - Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Allegations of mental and physical harassment leading to suicide - Prima facie case - Continuous harassment to the deceased due to inability to conceive - Selling of golden ornaments given by the deceased's father - Father of the deceased files FIR against the applicant and others - Applicant's counsel argues no prima facie case - Incidents of harassment allegedly occurred more than 12 months before suicide, no suicide note found - Reliance on various judgments, including those from the Hon'ble Supreme Court - Counsel for State of Gujarat argues prima facie case based on continuous harassment - Court examines legal precedents on abetment of suicide and cruelty to married women - Opines sufficient material available for trial - Application for quashing FIR dismissed.

Service Law - Promotion of petitioner to the post of Hindi Master - Interpretation of circular and cut-off dates - Denial of promotion found to be wrongful and unjustified - Writ petition allowed - Directions to consider petitioner's case for promotion on the post of Hindi Master in accordance with Punjab State Education Class III (School Cadre) Service Rules 1978 - Petitioner ranked at seniority no. 264, while lower-ranked individuals were granted promotion - Petitioner appointed as ETT teacher on 07.12.2001 - Circular stipulated cut-off date for eligibility and examination of educational qualification - Petitioner possessed requisite educational qualification at the time of consideration - Erroneous interpretation of circular led to the petitioner's exclusion from promotion - Court orders respondents to consider petitioner's case for promotion and grant consequential benefits - Petitioner's salary to be revised from the date his juniors were promoted - Arrears to be paid within three months.

Appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Challenge to eviction order - Non-consideration of relevant lease agreement clauses and statutory provisions - Non-fulfillment of requirements for sub-tenancy - Lack of written consent and notice - Sub-tenants' lack of locus standi to challenge eviction decree. (Para 23, 28)

Sub-tenancy - Privity of contract and estate with the principal tenant - No direct relationship with the landlord - Protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act not applicable - Supreme Court precedent. (Para 15, 30)

Written consent and notice - Clause 4 of the lease agreement - Requirements for creation of sub-tenancy - Compliance with Sections 17 and 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act - Lack of evidence in support. (Para 25, 32)

Appeal under Section 38 - Questions of law - Non-consideration of relevant clauses and provisions - Legal infirmity - Fall within the purview of questions of law to be decided. (Para 27, 33)

Petition dismissed - Lack of merit - No costs awarded. (Para 34)

Appointment of Legal Consultant - Eligibility for Judicial Service - Interpretation of Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules - Functionality Test - Nature of services performed by the legal consultant - Engagement on a contractual basis - Engagement to conduct court cases and appear in courts on behalf of the Central Government - Department of Legal Affairs issuing circular for engagement of legal consultants - Terms of engagement excluding government benefits and any claim to a government post - Retainer paid accounted for as expenditure for professional services - Affidavit filed by legal consultant affirming duties performed - Petitioner challenging the engagement - Examination by the committee of the Delhi High Court - Consideration of court decisions on similar cases - Supreme Court's observation on the functionality test - Application of the test to the legal consultant's engagement - Compliance with Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules - Engagement not constituting full-time employment - Upholding the decision of the committee of the Delhi High Court - Rejection of petitioner's challenge - Unsustainability of additional marks awarded in certain papers of the examination - Redrawing of select list of candidates directed. (Para No. 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111.)

Bail application - Rejection of bail - Accused charged under Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) - Accused Leena Paulose and B. Mohanraj involved in an organized crime syndicate - Accused Leena Paulose received money through Hawala transactions, failed to explain the source of credited entries in her bank account, and purchased luxury cars without plausible explanation - Accused Leena Paulose actively coordinated with main accused Sukesh Chandra Shekhar while he was in prison - Accused B. Mohanraj facilitated the purchase of luxury cars, handled cash delivery, and orchestrated the purchase of a benami property worth crores - Accused B. Mohanraj's role extended beyond that of a lawyer - Accused Kamlesh Kothari also involved in purchasing cars and property for the main accused - Previous instances of cognizable offenses committed by the accused - Denial of bail justified. (Para 72-78)

Exercise of discretion at bail stage - MCOCA provision - Reasonable grounds for believing accused not guilty of offense and unlikely to commit offense while on bail - Preponderance of probabilities - Prima facie grounds - Mini-trial not permissible at bail stage. (Para 75-76)

Role of accused - Accused Leena Paulose's receipt of extortion money and coordination with main accused while in prison - Accused B. Mohanraj's facilitation of illegal transactions, preparation of a sham agreement for benami property, and knowledge of the sources of funds - Accused Kamlesh Kothari's aiding and abetting of the main accused in parking extorted money. (Para 77)

Sensitivity of the case - Prima facie involvement of accused in MCOCA offenses - Lack of illegality or infirmity in trial court's order - Bail applications of accused Leena Paulose, B. Mohanraj, and Kamlesh Kothari rightly rejected. (Para 78)

Jurisdiction – The petitioner invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the validity of termination orders based on suppression of material facts regarding criminal conviction. The court considers the validity of the termination and its legal implications.

Facts – The petitioner, a teacher, faced a criminal case resulting in conviction for IPC offences. He suppressed this information from the department, obtained extraordinary leaves under false pretexts, and later falsely claimed acquittal in his appeal against conviction. After departmental proceedings were dropped, his voluntary retirement was accepted, but later withdrawn due to his fraudulent conduct, leading to the termination order based on Rule 19 of the CCA Rules 1958.

Legal Principles – Misrepresentation and Fraudulent Conduct – The court examines the legal principles related to misrepresentation and fraudulent conduct in obtaining employment. It emphasizes that fraudulent employment obtained through misrepresentation can be treated as voidable. Fraud vitiates all judicial acts, and dishonesty and suppression of material facts affect trustworthiness. An employee with fraudulent conduct cannot claim a right to continue in service.

Employer’s Discretion – Credibility and Trustworthiness – The court acknowledges the employer’s discretion in assessing the credibility and trustworthiness of employees. It states that an employee’s conduct affecting trust can be grounds for termination, especially in uniformed service where higher integrity is expected and fraudulent conduct is not tolerated.

Decision – Termination Justified – The court concludes that the petitioner’s suppression of material facts, misrepresentation, and fraudulent conduct regarding his criminal conviction warranted termination. As a result, the petitioner’s claim to continue in service is denied, and the writ petition is dismissed, upholding the termination order. (Para 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21)

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Civil Contempt - Principles governing - Allegation of wilful disobedience of court order - Requirement to establish disobedience of court order and wilfulness - Liberal approach to be taken in adjudicating civil contempt cases - Clear violation of court order must be shown - Disobedience must be wilful and intentional - Casual, accidental, bona fide, or unintentional acts not sufficient to establish contempt - Contempt proceedings should not be invoked without clear case of wilful disobedience - Compliance with court orders necessary for maintenance of effective legal system - Disobedience of court's order strikes at the root of the rule of law - Powers of contempt should be exercised cautiously and when necessary for maintenance of justice - Genuine inability to comply with court order may not be considered contemptuous. (Para 29-33)

Wilful disobedience of court order - Intentional disobedience required to establish contempt - Disobedience must be deliberate or contumacious - Unintentional or accidental disobedience not sufficient to establish contempt - Disobedience resulting from misapprehension of legal position and good faith without intention to defy court's order may not be considered contemptuous - Disobedience must involve degree of fault or misconduct to hold one guilty of contempt - Casual or unintentional acts of disobedience may amount to contempt in theory only and not warrant punishment. (Para 32, 34-35)

Maintenance of business - Compliance with court orders - Grant of credit facilities and creation of charge on subject properties - Permissible actions by respondents to protect and expand business - Actions taken in entrepreneurial capacity and not in personal capacity as legal representatives - No intentional or wilful disobedience of court order established - Subsequent orders and developments substantiate respondents' objections - Lack of merit in petitioner's claim for contempt proceedings. (Para 42-45, 48)

Adjudication of contempt proceedings - Consideration of entire case, subsequent developments, and interpretations of court orders - Court not limited to initial order while adjudicating contempt - Peculiar advancements in the case to be taken into account - Observations made in the judgment limited to the instant contempt proceedings and not indicative of opinions on merits of other pending cases between parties. (Para 47)

Dismissal of petition - Lack of wilful disobedience established - Contempt proceedings not initiated against respondents - Observations not to be considered as opinions on merits of other cases - Judgment to be uploaded on the website. (Para 49-52)

Village Common Lands - Jurisdiction to Decide Title Suits – The amendment of Section 13-A by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1999 confers jurisdiction to decide original title suits solely on the Collector – Held, orders passed by the Assistant Collector deciding such title suits are without jurisdiction and thus quashed – Assistant Collector’s decision dated 24.09.2016 is a nullity. [Paras 1-22]

Powers of Assistant Collector and Collector – Analysis – Post-amendment, Assistant Collectors retain jurisdiction to decide questions of title only within eviction proceedings under Section 7, not in independent title suits – Orders by Assistant Collectors outside this scope are invalid. [Paras 10-12]

Decision – Nullity of Orders Beyond Jurisdiction – The court reiterated that decisions made by an authority without proper jurisdiction are null and void – Consequently, the matter is remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision as per the statutory framework. [Paras 36-38]