Service Law – Pension Entitlement – Interpretation of Retirement Benefit Schemes – University Employees’ Rights – The appellant was appointed as a Junior Scientist cum Assistant Professor in 1987 and, as per the Rajendra Agricultural University Statutes, 1976, was required to opt for the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme if he did not wish to be covered under the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme – The appellant never opted for CPF – Held: Under Chapter 16 of the University Statutes, non-exercise of the CPF option automatically entitled the appellant to the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme – High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s claim was erroneous [Paras 9-12].

Office Order Implementation – Automatic Inclusion in Pension Scheme Upon Non-Exercise of CPF Option – The University’s Office Order dated 21.02.2008 clearly stipulated that employees who did not opt for CPF within one month would automatically be included in the pension scheme – The appellant did not exercise the option, yet the University failed to include him in the pension scheme – Held: The University's failure to include the appellant in the pension scheme violated its own statutory provisions [Paras 6-7].

Precedents from the High Court – Similarly Placed Employees Granted Pension – The Patna High Court had previously ruled in multiple cases, including Arjun Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC 2041/2012), that non-exercise of the CPF option must result in automatic entitlement to pension – The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s refusal to grant the appellant similar relief was arbitrary and contrary to established precedent [Paras 11-12].

Appeal Allowed – Direction for Pension Grant Within Four Months – The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be granted retiral benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme, with necessary adjustments for any CPF benefits received – Computation and disbursement were ordered within four months [Para 13].
 

Criminal Law – Pre-Charge Evidence – Right to Fair Hearing – Application under Section 311 CrPC Allowed - The appellant, alleging fraud in a land sale agreement, sought to examine himself as a witness after the trial court closed pre-charge evidence – The application under Section 311 CrPC was dismissed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court – Held: The appellant must be given an opportunity to present his pre-charge evidence – Decision: Impugned orders set aside; appellant permitted to tender pre-charge evidence on 19.03.2025, subject to payment of costs [Paras 8-9].

Fraudulent Sale Agreement – Allegation of Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating – Proceedings to Continue - Appellant alleged that he was duped into paying ₹1.13 crores for a land deal that never materialized – A forged General Power of Attorney was allegedly issued – Complaint was filed under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC – Decision: Supreme Court directed that after tendering pre-charge evidence, the trial court shall decide the matter in accordance with law [Paras 3-7, 11].

Judicial Discretion – Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court’s Order Interfered With - High Court declined to interfere with the trial court’s rejection of Section 311 CrPC application – Supreme Court found that the lower courts erred in denying the appellant the opportunity to present evidence – Decision: High Court’s order dated 18.09.2024 set aside, allowing the appellant to testify [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Complaint – Allegation of Theft – Contradiction by Subsequent Conduct – Complaint Quashed – The complainants alleged that the first appellant (wife) stole ornaments and valuables from her matrimonial home; however, the third respondent (husband) had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights after the alleged theft — Held: If the husband genuinely believed that the wife committed theft, he would not have sought her return to cohabitation; suppression of this fact in the complaint vitiated the proceedings [Paras 5-6].

Abuse of Process – Suppression of Material Facts – Complaint Set Aside – The Court found that the complainants deliberately suppressed the pending matrimonial proceedings, which were crucial to assessing the credibility of the allegations — Held: Complaint was an abuse of the process of law and deserved to be quashed [Paras 5-7].

Quashing of Proceedings – Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Power Reaffirmed – The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in declining to exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC despite the evident abuse of legal process — Held: The summoning order and the complaint were quashed to prevent injustice [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Summoning Order and Complaint Quashed – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court and Magistrate’s orders, and clarified that these findings would not affect pending matrimonial proceedings between the parties [Paras 8-10].

Writ - Habeas Corpus - Guardianship – Intellectual Disability – Legality of High Court Decision – Parens Patriae Doctrine Applied – The appellant, Aadith Ramadorai’s mother, challenged the High Court’s decision dismissing her habeas corpus petition seeking custody – The High Court held that Aadith, being a major, was voluntarily residing with his father and paternal grandparents in India – Supreme Court held that in cases involving persons with cognitive disabilities, their capacity to make informed decisions must be assessed through expert medical evaluation – The medical reports from NIMHANS, Bengaluru, and the Evaluation Committee in the U.S. confirmed that Aadith functioned at the cognitive level of an 8 to 10-year-old child – Held: Aadith lacked the capacity to make independent decisions regarding long-term residence, and the High Court erred in disregarding expert medical opinions [Paras 7-22].

Best Interests of the Individual – Role of the Courts in Custody Matters – Repatriation Ordered – Supreme Court reaffirmed that in cases involving persons with disabilities, courts must prioritize their well-being over parental conflicts – The Court noted that Aadith had spent his entire life in the U.S. and was receiving specialized education and social security benefits – His medical needs and skill development programs were interrupted by his unexpected travel to India – Held: Aadith’s best interests lay in his return to the U.S. to resume his education, medical care, and structured support system – Repatriation directed under the Court’s parens patriae jurisdiction [Paras 24-34].

Foreign Court Orders – Comity of Courts – Recognition of U.S. Guardianship Order – The Idaho Court had already appointed the appellant as Aadith’s full and permanent guardian after considering medical evidence – Supreme Court held that while comity of courts is not absolute, foreign custody orders must be given due weight when they align with the best interests of the individual – Held: The Idaho Court’s guardianship order was consistent with Aadith’s welfare and deserved recognition in India [Paras 30-31].

Contempt of Court – Non-Compliance with Interim Orders – Strict Directions Issued – The appellant filed a contempt petition alleging that Aadith’s father, despite court directions, restricted her interaction with Aadith and refused to comply with temporary custody arrangements – Supreme Court took serious note of non-compliance and warned of strict action for future violations – Held: Aadith to be immediately placed in the appellant’s custody, and all necessary travel arrangements to be facilitated by the Indian and U.S. authorities [Paras 3.16, 3.18].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Aadith Ramadorai to be Repatriated to the U.S. under the Custody of His Mother – Immediate Compliance Ordered.

Service Law – Termination of contractual employees -  Initial Constitution – Absorption of Ad-hoc Employees – Interpretation of Rules – SAI’s Recruitment Process – Legality of Termination – The respondents, appointed on a contractual basis as physiotherapists, challenged their termination and claimed absorption under the "initial constitution" clause of the 2022 Rules – The Tribunal held that since the respondents had been recruited through a proper selection process, their appointments were not illegal but only irregular, entitling them to be considered as "initial constituents" – The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision – The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that once an employee is classified as an "initial constituent" under the 2022 Rules, they cannot be treated as mere contractual employees but must be absorbed as regular employees of SAI – SAI's attempt to recall its own statement conceding the point before the High Court was rejected [Paras 12-14].

Concessions by Counsel – Binding Nature – Recourse in Case of Misunderstanding – SAI sought to recall its own concession before the High Court, arguing that its counsel misunderstood the Tribunal's order – The Supreme Court held that a party cannot challenge an order based on a concession it voluntarily made unless there is fraud or deception – In the absence of an affidavit stating that the counsel was unauthorized to make the concession, SAI was bound by the representation made before the High Court [Paras 9-10].

Employment Law – Regularization of Contractual Employees – Tribunal’s Power to Direct Regularization – The Supreme Court reiterated that a selection process conducted for contractual appointments does not necessarily confer the right to regularization unless there are specific rules governing absorption – In this case, the 2022 Rules explicitly provided for the inclusion of ad-hoc employees under the "initial constitution" clause, justifying the Tribunal’s direction for their consideration as regular employees [Paras 11-13].

Dismissal of Appeals – No Merits in SAI’s Case – The Supreme Court found no merit in SAI’s arguments, affirming that both the Tribunal and the High Court correctly applied the 2022 Rules – The appeals were dismissed [Para 14].

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Amicable Settlement – Invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution – Decree of Divorce by Mutual Consent - The Family Court granted divorce to the respondent-husband on the ground of cruelty—The High Court upheld the decree—During the appeal before the Supreme Court, the parties opted for mediation and reached a Final Settlement Agreement—Held: Since the parties had been living separately since 2013 and had resolved their disputes amicably, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent—Decision: Divorce granted under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act; previous findings on cruelty set aside [Paras 9-14].

Child Custody and Maintenance – ₹2.11 Crores Settlement for Minor Child – Visitation Rights Granted - The parties agreed on financial terms for the minor child's maintenance—The respondent-husband paid ₹2.11 crores to the appellant-wife—Visitation rights were established, allowing the father periodic access to the child, including overnight visits—Held: The agreed settlement for maintenance and visitation was binding on both parties—Decision: Settlement upheld; visitation rights enforced as per agreement [Paras 10-18].

Quashing of Criminal and Civil Cases – Parties Barred from Future Litigation – No Further Claims - As part of the settlement, both parties agreed to withdraw all pending cases, including FIRs and domestic violence proceedings—Held: All pending litigation, including FIR No. 364/2022 under Section 498A IPC, were quashed—Decision: No future claims shall be entertained; all legal disputes between the parties stand resolved [Paras 15-18].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Grievous Hurt – High Court’s Conviction under Section 326 IPC Modified to Section 325 IPC - The appellants were convicted under Section 307 IPC by the Sessions Court—High Court altered the conviction to Section 326 IPC but retained imprisonment—Supreme Court found doubt regarding whether the weapons used (bamboo sticks and wooden logs) were "dangerous weapons" under Section 326 IPC—Held: The evidence warranted conviction under Section 325 IPC (grievous hurt) instead—Decision: Conviction modified from Section 326 IPC to Section 325 IPC [Paras 7-11].

Sentencing – Reduction of Punishment – Period Already Undergone Considered Sufficient - The incident occurred in 1994—Appellants had already spent six months in custody and had no other criminal record—Held: Sentencing them to further imprisonment after decades would not serve justice—Decision: Sentence reduced to period already undergone, with fine imposed [Paras 12-13].

Penalty for Default – Additional Imprisonment in Case of Non-Payment of Fine - Supreme Court directed the appellants to deposit the fine within one month—Held: Failure to pay would result in an additional imprisonment of one year minus the period already served [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Quashing – Rape - False Promise of Marriage – Long-Term Consensual Relationship – FIR Quashed – The appellant and the complainant were in an intimate relationship for over 16 years – The complainant alleged that the appellant had engaged in sexual intercourse with her under a false promise of marriage – However, she continued the relationship despite knowing about his marriage to another woman – Supreme Court held that a prolonged relationship spanning 16 years, where both parties were consenting adults, cannot be termed as rape merely because the relationship eventually soured – Held: Criminal proceedings quashed as continuation of trial would amount to an abuse of process of law [Paras 22-25, 37-38].

Consent in Intimate Relationships – Distinction Between Rape and Consensual Sex – The complainant, an educated woman with professional qualifications, continued to engage in a relationship with the appellant for over a decade – She willingly traveled to meet him multiple times and maintained physical relations – Supreme Court reiterated that when a woman, fully aware of the consequences, engages in a voluntary relationship for an extended period, it cannot later be claimed that the consent was vitiated due to misconception of fact – Held: No case of rape is made out as there was no coercion, threat, or deceit in the initial stages of the relationship [Paras 24-30].

Delay in Filing FIR – Questionable Credibility – Malafide Intent Suspected – The complainant filed an FIR in 2022, nearly 16 years after the alleged first incident of rape in 2006 – She remained silent and continued the relationship without lodging any complaint until the appellant married another woman in 2022 – Supreme Court held that such a long delay in filing the FIR casts doubt on the authenticity of the allegations – Held: Delay of 16 years weakens the prosecution case and indicates that the FIR was filed due to personal grievances rather than any real criminal offence [Paras 31-33].

Legal Principles Governing False Promise of Marriage – Protection Against Misuse – Supreme Court referred to precedents emphasizing that a promise of marriage must be false from the inception to vitiate consent – In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant never intended to marry the complainant – The complainant herself admitted to portraying herself as the appellant’s wife in multiple instances – Held: False promise of marriage cannot be inferred when the relationship is prolonged, consensual, and both parties voluntarily continued engagement [Paras 26-29].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – FIR No. 269 of 2022 and All Criminal Proceedings Against the Appellant Quashed – High Court Order Set Aside.

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction - Forgery and Fabrication – Lack of Primary Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted on the basis of allegations that he prepared the postal cover in which a forged marksheet was transmitted – The trial court relied on the testimony of a handwriting expert (PW-18) to establish the appellant’s involvement – Supreme Court noted that the original postal cover was never produced or exhibited as primary evidence – Held: Without proving the existence of the primary document, reliance on expert testimony alone was insufficient to sustain conviction – Appellant acquitted [Paras 13-15].

Handwriting Expert Evidence – Corroboration Required – Testimony Not Sufficient to Convict – The Supreme Court reiterated that while expert testimony is admissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, it must be corroborated by other substantive evidence – In this case, the expert’s reasoning sheet was not brought on record, and he did not identify the disputed document conclusively – Held: In the absence of supporting evidence, reliance solely on expert opinion was erroneous, rendering the conviction unsustainable [Paras 8-12].

Criminal Trial – Burden of Proof – Prosecution Failed to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – The prosecution failed to prove that the postal cover, which allegedly contained the forged marksheet, was linked to the appellant – Supreme Court held that in criminal trials, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any failure to prove material facts must result in acquittal – Held: The trial court, appellate court, and High Court erred in convicting the appellant without substantive evidence beyond expert opinion [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted of All Charges – Trial Court, Appellate Court, and High Court Judgments Quashed.