Quashing of FIR – Criminal Proceedings – Effect of Civil Court Findings – Standard of Proof – Held: Findings of Civil Court are not binding on Criminal Court and vice versa – Standard of proof in civil cases (preponderance of probabilities) differs from that in criminal cases (proof beyond reasonable doubt) – No statutory or legal principle that a finding recorded in one forum is conclusive in another – Sections 41 to 43 of the Evidence Act only define limited relevance of previous judgments – Constitution Bench decision in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras (AIR 1954 SC 397) followed; Karam Chand Ganga Prasad v. Union of India (AIR 1971 SC 1244) held per incuriam [Paras 11–19].

Criminal Law – Abuse of Process – Delay in Lodging FIR – FIR filed 14 years after the alleged forgery and immediately after losing the civil case – Held: Delay unexplained – FIR clearly an afterthought and motivated by frustration of losing before Civil Court – Filing of belated criminal complaint amounts to abuse of process – Courts must prevent criminal law from being used as an instrument of harassment [Paras 20–24].

Simultaneous Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Permissibility – Reiterated that both can proceed independently where facts justify – However, inordinate delay and mala fide motive in filing criminal case after adverse civil verdict justifies quashing to prevent misuse of criminal process [Paras 17, 23–24].

Relief – Although High Court erred in law by treating civil findings as binding on criminal proceedings, Supreme Court declined interference in view of inordinate and unexplained delay and mala fides – Appeal disposed of without disturbing High Court’s quashing of FIR [Paras 25–26].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Framing of Charge – Suicide by law student following false accusation of theft – Appellant, a retired IPS officer serving as university security officer, was summoned under Section 306 IPC despite no allegation in the suicide note – FIR did not name appellant – Suicide note specifically blamed another student and faculty head – No material evidence of instigation, conspiracy or aiding by appellant – Held: In absence of credible material, framing of charge was unjustified – Appellant exonerated [Paras 5–7, 13–15, 30–31]

Criminal Procedure – Section 306 IPC – Legal Threshold for Abetment – Reiterated that abetment involves mental process of instigation or intentional aiding – Requires active or direct act pushing deceased to commit suicide – Mere presence or official role in disciplinary inquiry insufficient – Each case must be judged individually – Held: No mens rea or active role proved against appellant – Suicide note silent on any role of appellant – Charge quashed [Paras 21, 24–28, 30]

Criminal Trial – Abuse of Process – Frivolous Prosecution – Court noted it would be travesty of justice to compel appellant to face trial without evidence – Emphasized caution in invoking Section 306 IPC based on suicide in sensitive cases – Framing of charge must meet legal standards – Held: Summoning appellant in complaint without credible basis violates fairness in criminal process [Paras 13–14, 28–30]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Charge under Section 306 IPC against appellant quashed – All pending proceedings against appellant dropped

Service Law – Dismissal on Ground of Conviction – Effect of Probation – Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Appellant, a bank employee, convicted under Section 409 IPC for misappropriating Rs. 5000 meant for deposit – Though appellate court granted benefit of probation, employer dismissed appellant from service – Held: Grant of probation does not nullify conviction – Section 12 removes statutory disqualifications under other laws but does not bar employer from dismissing employee based on conduct and conviction [Paras 8–13, 17–19, 27]

Banking Regulation Act – Section 10(1)(b)(i) – Mandatory Cessation of Employment on Conviction – As per Section 10(1)(b)(i), banking company is prohibited from continuing employment of a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude – Conviction for criminal breach of trust (Section 409 IPC) held to constitute moral turpitude – Held: Bank was legally bound to terminate employment upon conviction irrespective of probation benefit [Paras 20–25]

Moral Turpitude – Definition and Application – Moral turpitude means conduct contrary to honesty, modesty, or good morals – Includes acts of baseness and depravity that shock societal conscience – Conviction for embezzlement of funds by a bank employee held to be an offence involving moral turpitude – Reinstatement not permissible [Paras 21–24]

Judicial Precedents – Limited Applicability of Aitha Chander Rao and Shankar Dass Cases – Reliance on Aitha Chander Rao rejected as it was passed under Article 142 without reasoning – Shankar Dass not applicable as it did not establish a principle overriding statutory mandates – Each case must be decided based on its own facts and relevant statutory framework [Paras 9–10, 15–18]

Judicial Review – Scope of Court’s Power – Article 142 – No Direction Against Statutory Provision – Courts cannot issue directions contrary to statutory mandates – Once an employee is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude, and statute prohibits continuation, courts cannot direct reinstatement despite probation [Paras 26, 27]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 409 IPC upheld – Benefit of probation under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act does not entitle reinstatement – Dismissal from bank service justified under Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act – No order as to costs. [Paras 27–29]

Judicial Service – Eligibility Criteria – Basic Computer Knowledge – Appellant participated in selection for Civil Judge (Junior Division) under the Uttaranchal Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – Though successful in written and viva voce exams, he was not selected for lack of basic knowledge in computer operation – Held: Requirement of basic computer knowledge is part of Rule 8(c) and was explicitly mentioned in the advertisement and call letters – No new criterion introduced mid-selection – No violation of law or arbitrariness established [Paras 5-6, 10-11, 19-21, 24-25].

Selection Process – Challenge to Procedure – Appellant claimed vague standard applied to test computer knowledge and raised objections only after failing – Held: Appellant participated in full knowledge of criteria, faced viva including computer knowledge component without protest – Barred by estoppel from challenging process post facto – Once a candidate participates in process with knowledge of procedure, he cannot later dispute it upon being unsuccessful [Paras 20-21, 26-28].

Administrative Law – Estoppel – Participation without Protest – Supreme Court reiterated principle that candidates who knowingly participate in selection process cannot challenge its validity after unfavourable result – Cited decisions in G. Sarana, P.S. Gopinathan, S. Vinodh Kumar, and K.H. Siraj [Paras 26-28].

Public Employment – Relevance of Computer Literacy – Supreme Court recognized importance of basic computer knowledge for judicial officers in light of e-governance and digitalisation of court systems – Held: Essential criteria like computer literacy cannot be diluted in judicial appointments – Assessment by subject expert during interview process upheld [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld Uttarakhand High Court's rejection of writ petition – Found no merit in contention that selection process was vitiated or that eligibility criteria were altered midstream [Paras 30-31].

Service Law – Recruitment Policy – Discriminatory Application – State initially followed batchwise recruitment of Pharmacists under 1980 Rules prioritising diploma-holders from earlier years – Respondents were denied appointment under that system – Later, the State adopted merit-based selection under 2003 Rules, again excluding those previously denied – Held: State cannot apply the same rules differently at different times to the prejudice of the same group – Once deprived on one basis, they cannot be excluded again under a new method – Arbitrary action violates Article 14 [Paras 1, 5–7, 10, 25, 31–34]

Constitutional Law – Equality before Law – Article 14 – The State’s interpretation and application of recruitment rules in a shifting manner led to denial of legitimate expectations – Court held that executive discretion must be fair and non-arbitrary – The principle of fairness required the State to accommodate diploma-holders denied earlier due to policy constraints [Paras 7, 25, 31–33]

Recruitment Rules – Harmonious Construction – Uttar Pradesh Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980 continued to operate even after 2002 and 2003 Rules – No express repeal – Recruitment procedures must be interpreted harmoniously – Past practice, though not codified, cannot be discarded to the detriment of those previously excluded [Paras 29–30, 31–34]

Decision: SLPs filed by State of U.P. and similarly placed private parties dismissed – SLPs filed by Ajay Singh and Shravan Kumar Pandey allowed – Petitioners entitled to same benefits as diploma-holders governed by 1980 Rules who obtained diplomas before 1998 – No order as to costs

Land Acquisition – Urgency Clause – Invocation of Section 17(1) and Dispensation of Section 5A – Acquisition for residential colony by Gorakhpur Development Authority – State invoked urgency powers under Section 17(4) to bypass Section 5A inquiry – Held: Acquisition for 'planned development' or 'housing' cannot routinely bypass Section 5A – Government failed to justify urgency warranting elimination of hearing – Notifications to the extent of excluding Section 5A found legally infirm [Paras 12, 30–32]

Constitutional Law – Article 300A – Right to Property – Section 5A as substantive right – Dispensing with Section 5A eliminates valuable right to object – Supreme Court reiterates need for strict compliance before bypassing procedural safeguards – Emphasizes judicial review of urgency decisions in absence of material evidence [Paras 30–31, 35–36]

Delay and Urgency – Pre-notification and Post-notification Delay – Land identified in 2001, but acquisition notifications issued only in 2003/2004 – Declaration under Section 6 delayed further till 2004 – Such delays negate claim of urgency – State failed to demonstrate urgency could not brook delay for Section 5A procedure [Paras 7–8, 32]

Relief – De-acquisition under Section 48(1) – Though invocation of urgency was unjustified, large portion of land already developed – Over 370 landowners accepted compensation – Award passed and work completed over 60% – Acquisition not quashed – Appellants permitted to make representation under Section 48(1) for release of their land – State directed to consider without discrimination [Paras 32–34]

Service Law – Dismissal of Bank Officer – Misconduct – Charges of misappropriating Rs. 16.48 lakhs by granting 20 loans against fictitious FDRs – Handwritten ledger entries showed disbursement to unrelated third parties – Respondent absconded from duty without charge handover after vigilance inquiry – Departmental inquiry held charges proved based on documentary and oral evidence – High Court set aside dismissal citing sketchy inquiry report – Held: Findings of inquiry officer were based on adequate evidence and supported by detailed documents – Respondent failed to explain irregularities – High Court erred in interfering with disciplinary authority’s conclusions [Paras 2–11, 16–18].

Judicial Review – Departmental Proceedings – Scope – Inquiry officer not required to write a judicial order but must apply mind and base findings on evidence – Inquiry report assessed relevant entries, witness deposition and handwriting – Held: High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and labelling findings as perverse without justification – Findings not based on conjecture or no evidence – Interference unwarranted [Paras 17–18].

Banking Sector – Duty of Integrity – Branch Manager entrusted with public funds – Established that withdrawals were made in names unrelated to FDRs – Documentary evidence in respondent’s handwriting – Respondent offered no defence nor produced borrowers – Held: Misconduct of this nature grave – High level of integrity required in banking services – Reinstatement not justified in law or equity [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court set aside – Writ petition and related contempt proceedings dismissed [Para 20].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based on Sole Eye-Witness – Appellant convicted for killing his wife and son and injuring another son with a knife – Conviction based mainly on testimony of surviving son (PW-1), corroborated by immediate post-incident disclosure to neighbours – Held: Testimony of PW-1 was natural, consistent and credible – Other prosecution witnesses, though not eye-witnesses, supported immediate disclosure – No reason to falsely implicate father – Conviction upheld [Paras 1–4, 11–14, 17]

Criminal Trial – Evidence of Sole Witness – Section 134 of Evidence Act – Quality of evidence, not quantity, is determinative – No legal bar to convict on testimony of a single witness if wholly reliable – Court reiterated that a trustworthy solitary eye-witness can form the basis of conviction even in absence of corroboration – Appeal based on numerical inadequacy of witnesses rejected [Paras 24–28]

Criminal Law – Motive – Not Always Necessary – Absence of established motive immaterial where prosecution relies on direct evidence – Held: When direct evidence by natural witness (son) is credible, lack of motive does not weaken prosecution case – Appellant's silence under Section 313 CrPC and lack of explanation for abscondence also weighed against him [Paras 16–21]

Criminal Law – Abscondence of Accused – Not Conclusive of Guilt – Absconding after incident, while relevant, cannot by itself establish guilt – However, unexplained abscondence adds to suspicion when read with other incriminating circumstances – Court refused to treat abscondence as determinative but considered it contextually [Para 22]

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Accused’s Silence – Accused gave identical response (“I am innocent”) to all questions under Section 313 – No explanation offered for circumstances – Held: Incriminating evidence uncontroverted – Absence of denial or explanation adds to weight of prosecution case [Paras 15–16]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302 and 323 IPC confirmed – Sentence of life imprisonment and 6 months RI to run concurrently – Appreciation recorded for amicus curiae assistance.

Criminal Law – Dying Declaration – Section 32(1), Evidence Act – Section 162(2), CrPC – Statement of deceased recorded by Head Constable after medical certification of fitness held admissible as dying declaration. There is no mandatory requirement that such declaration must be recorded by a Magistrate or Doctor. What is essential is voluntariness, truth, and fitness of maker. Statement corroborated by medical and ocular evidence – FIR based on such statement valid. [Paras 6–7]

Criminal Law – Appreciation of Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Non-examination or hostility of some witnesses does not demolish prosecution case if other reliable evidence and dying declaration conclusively establish guilt. Conviction can rest solely on truthful and voluntary dying declaration corroborated by medical evidence. [Para 8–9]

Criminal Law – Homicide – Section 302 vs Section 304 Part II IPC – Assault arose from family property dispute. Accused armed with iron rod inflicted single blow on head of deceased; no premeditation or intention to kill established. Injury fatal but inflicted without knowledge that it was likely to cause death. Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II IPC. [Paras 10–11]

Criminal Procedure – Evidence – A police officer may record a statement under Section 32(1) Evidence Act if the victim is in fit condition and statement is voluntary; such statement is not rendered inadmissible merely because not recorded by a Magistrate. [Paras 6–7]

Sentence – Life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC modified to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of ₹20,000 under Section 304 Part II IPC; in default, further imprisonment of six months. [Para 11]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence reduced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of ₹20,000, in default to undergo further six months’ rigorous imprisonment – Other convictions under Sections 148, 452, and 323 IPC maintained.