Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 19, 21 - Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) - National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) - MBBS Course Admission - General Category - NRI Quota - Petitioner, an OCI card holder, seeks admission in MBBS Course under General Category - Petitioner denied the opportunity to register in General Category and confined to NRI Quota - Petitioner files writ petition challenging the legality of Clause 17 (vi) of impugned notification dated 10.03.2023 - Petitioner relies on Supreme Court judgment in Anushka Rengunthwar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. - Issue of eligibility for OCI candidates under General Category and NRI Quota examined - Authorities directed to consider and decide the matter on the day of the order - Merits of the case left open - Relief granted to petitioner

Criminal Procedure - Regular Bail Application - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 439 Cr.P.C - Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act (Section 29 NDPS Act added later) - Alleged recovery of contraband from co-accused (petitioner's husband) - Petitioner's custody for 7 months and 8 days - Petitioner's contention of false implication - No recovery from the petitioner - No criminal antecedents - Charges framed but no witnesses examined - Trial likely to take time. [Para 1-3]

Court's Observations - Considering the facts and circumstances - No recovery from petitioner - Not involved in any other case - Trial at an early stage - Petitioner's further incarceration serves no useful purpose. [Para 6]

Court's Decision - Petitioner granted regular bail - Conditions imposed: (i) No tampering with evidence, (ii) No pressurizing/intimidating witnesses, (iii) Mandatory appearance before the trial court, (iv) Not to commit a similar offense, (v) No coercion or tampering with evidence, (vi) No misuse of liberty, (vii) Furnishing address and mobile number to the trial court, (viii) No leaving the country without permission, (ix) Trial court may impose additional conditions. [Para 7]

FACTS: Indus Towers Ltd. Appealed against the resolution (No. 7) of the Grampanchayat of Chikhalhol, which directed the company to halt the construction of a mobile tower, responding to objections raised by local villagers concerning health effects of the tower’s radiation.

ISSUES & RULINGS:

1. Whether the Grampanchayat, after issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC), had the authority to pass a resolution directing the cessation of the tower’s construction [Para 1-3].

    Ruling: The court held that once an NOC is issued by the Grampanchayat as per the Government Resolution dated 11^th December 2015, it loses control over the erection of the mobile tower. Hence, the Grampanchayat lacked authority in passing Resolution No.7, which was deemed illegal [Para 4-5].

2. Whether the villagers’ apprehensions about the tower’s radiation were justified and could serve as a ground for prohibiting the construction [Para 3].

   Ruling: Referencing the case of Biju K. Balan and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2019, the court concluded that fears not based on facts or supported by reliable scientific evidence could not be used to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court found no change in the absence of scientific material establishing the harmful effects of mobile tower radiation, thereby dismissing the villagers’ apprehensions as baseless [Para 6-7].

ORDER: The impugned resolution, Resolution No.7, dated 22^nd July 2022, passed by the respondent no.1Grampanchayat, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed not to obstruct the petitioner from operating the mobile tower so long as the operation is in accordance with the law [Para 8-9].

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 – Section 439 – Regular Bail – Grant of bail to petitioner in connection with FIR No.304 dated 30.06.2022 under Sections 15(c), 27-A, 29 of the NDPS Act – Allegations of illegal trafficking and selling of doda post – Petitioner’s involvement in the offence – Petitioner named in co-accused’s disclosure statement – Contention of false implication and inadmissibility of co-accused’s statement – Citing petitioner’s criminal antecedents – Co-accused already granted bail – No recovery made from petitioner – Court observes inadmissibility of co-accused’s statement and holds further incarceration not required – Regular bail granted to the petitioner.

NDPS ACT, 1985 – Sections 15(c), 27-A, 29 – Illegal trafficking and selling of doda post – Petitioner’s alleged role in transportation and sale – Inadmissibility of co-accused’s disclosure statement – Co-accused already granted bail – No recovery from petitioner – Regular bail granted.

CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS – Petitioner’s criminal antecedents – Two co-accused granted bail – No prosecution witnesses examined – Court deems further incarceration unnecessary – Regular bail granted.

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)