Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Parameters: The Court reiterated the parameters for quashing an FIR, as established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, including scenarios where the allegations do not constitute an offense, the allegations are absurd, and the proceedings are manifestly attended with malice.

Facts - Allegations - Investigation: The appellant challenged an order of the High Court rejecting his petition to quash an FIR registered against him for offenses under the IPC. The FIR was based on allegations that the appellant, in a position of influence, committed offenses such as dacoity, kidnapping, and extortion. Investigations revealed a history of multiple FIRs registered against the appellant and his family.

Analysis - Ingredients of Offense - Abuse of Process: The Court analyzed the content of the FIR, considering the history of multiple FIRs and the possibility of abuse of process. The Court concluded that the allegations made in the FIR, even if true, did not meet the necessary criteria to constitute the alleged offenses, particularly dacoity. The Court emphasized the importance of not restricting analysis to the face value of the FIR but considering surrounding circumstances.

Appeal Allowed - set aside the High Court's order - quashed the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR. (Para No. 10, 14, 20, 26, 32, 35)

Appeal allowed - FIR quashed against appellant - No specific allegations against appellant in FIR - Allegations vague - No particular role attributed to appellant - Delay in lodging FIR - Possibility of personal grudge or vengeance - Observations limited to this case - No impact on other pending proceedings.

Legal Principles - The Court may quash criminal proceedings if the FIR is vague, lacks specific allegations, or is based on political bias or personal grudge - Delay in lodging FIR not necessarily fatal to prosecution's case - Observations limited to the specific case and should not impact other pending proceedings.

Appeal is allowed - High Court's order rejecting the petition to quash FIR is set aside - Criminal proceedings against the appellant based on the FIR are quashed - No case made out for trial against the appellant.

Criminal Appeal – Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – The appellant challenges the judgment and order of the High Court and trial court that convicted him for murder. The appeal revolves around the assessment of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The conviction is questioned based on the insufficiency and unreliability of evidence. [Para 1]

Standard of Proof – Circumstantial Evidence – Necessity to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – The Court emphasizes the importance of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The five golden principles of circumstantial evidence are highlighted, including the necessity for circumstances to be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and the exclusion of alternative hypotheses. [Para 17]

Witness Testimonies – Last Seen Theory – The Court critically evaluates the testimonies of key witnesses in light of the last seen theory. Inconsistencies and doubts regarding the credibility of witnesses are highlighted, leading to non-corroboration of the prosecution's case. [Para 9, Para 10, Para 11]

Call Detail Records (CDRs) – Reliability of CDRs as evidence – The Court examines the reliability of CDRs as evidence. Inadequate evidence to support the prosecution's reliance on CDRs is noted. Doubts are raised about the conclusive link between the accused and the crime scene, casting doubt on the prosecution's version. [Para 14, Para 15]

Suspicion vs. Proof – Distinction between suspicion and proof beyond reasonable doubt – The Court distinguishes between mere suspicion and the need for solid proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases. The prosecution's burden to establish guilt is emphasized, with strong suspicion being insufficient to replace the requirement for concrete evidence. [Para 19]

Appeals allowed – Conviction quashed – Acquittal of the appellants – The Court allows the appeals, quashes the convictions, and directs the appellants to be set at liberty. Bail bonds of the appellants are discharged. The orders of the lower courts are set aside. [Para 21]

Criminal Law - Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence - Standard of Proof - The prosecution must establish the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt and should exclude every other possible hypothesis. There must be a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 17, Para 18]

Witness Testimonies - Inconsistent and Unreliable - Testimonies of key witnesses found to be inconsistent and unreliable during cross-examination, casting doubt on their credibility and the prosecution's case. [Para 10, Para 11]

Call Detail Records (CDRs) - Insufficient Evidence - Reliance on CDRs to place the accused at the scene of the incident found inadequate and unconvincing, as some CDRs were not in the name of the accused, and the circumstances raised doubts on their credibility. [Para 14, Para 15]

Refusal of Test Identification Parade (TIP) - Accused Already Shown to Witnesses - Showing the accused to witnesses in the Police Station before conducting the TIP raised doubts on the sanctity of TIP and affected the reliability of witness identifications. [Para 12, Para 14]

Acquittal - Failure of Prosecution to Prove Guilt - Insufficiency of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt resulting in the acquittal of the appellants of all charges. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence set aside, and the appellants directed to be set at liberty. [Para 20, Para 21]

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of Proceedings – Appellant challenges the impugned order of the High Court – Appellant granted leave – Merits of arguments not considered, given potential impact on trial rights [Para 2].

Scope of Quashing Proceedings – Distinction between quashing proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and application for discharge – High Court conducted mini-trial while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, which is not permissible – Elaborate discussion of witness statements exceeded permissible scope [Para 4-7].

Limited Interference – High Court’s power to quash proceedings for serious offences like Section 302 IPC is restricted – Quashing permitted only if no case is made out at face value – High Court erred in examining correctness of prosecution material at this stage [Para 8-9].

Remittal and Trial – Impugned order set aside – Case remitted to trial judge for consideration on merits and in accordance with the law – Respondent No.1 allowed to file application for discharge if desired [Para 10-12]. Appeal allowed in favor of the appellant – Pending applications disposed of [Para 13].

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167(2) - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 19 - Applicability of Section 167(2) CrPC to proceedings under PMLA Act - Interpretation of statutes - Custody during investigation - The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) are applicable to proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act). The Court rejected the argument that custody can only be given to an investigating agency within the first 15 days of remand, and held that the custody can span over the entire period of investigation (60 or 90 days) as long as it does not exceed a total period of 15 days. The Court emphasized the importance of a literal and natural interpretation of statutes, and clarified that an investigating agency is entitled to custody as per Section 167(2) CrPC beyond the initial 15 days, subject to a maximum of 15 days in total. (Para 40)

Writ of Habeas Corpus - Maintainability - When an arrestee is forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the PMLA Act, no writ of Habeas Corpus would lie. Any plea of illegal arrest is to be made before such Magistrate since custody becomes judicial. (Para 59)

Compliance of Section 19 of PMLA Act - Any non-compliance of the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA Act would benefit the person arrested, and the Competent Court has the power to initiate action under Section 62 of the PMLA Act. (Para 62)

Challenge to Order of Remand - An order of remand has to be challenged before a higher forum as provided under the CrPC when it depicts a due application of mind both on merit and compliance of Section 167(2) CrPC read with Section 19 of the PMLA Act. (Para 67)

Section 41A CrPC - Inapplicability to PMLA Act - Section 41A CrPC has no application to an arrest made under the PMLA Act. (Para 69)

Actual Custody - The word "custody" under Section 167(2) CrPC shall mean actual custody. (Para 73)

Doctrine of Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit - Any curtailment of the 15 days of police custody by extraneous circumstances, acts of God, or court orders not being the handiwork of the investigating agency would not act as a restriction. (Para 74)

Larger Issue for Reference - The Supreme Court referred the larger issue of the actual import of Section 167(2) CrPC, i.e., whether the 15 days period of custody in favor of the police should be only within the first 15 days of remand or spanning over the entire period of investigation (60 or 90 days) as a whole, to a larger bench for authoritative pronouncement. (Para 82)

Disposal of Appeals - The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals upholding the views expressed in the impugned judgments, and granted custody of the appellant to the respondents until 12.08.2023. The Court also disposed of pending applications. (Para 84)

Civil Appeal – Pension Entitlement of Contractual Employees – Appellant challenges High Court’s judgment granting pensionary benefits to contractual employees – Interpretation of Rule 2 and Rule 17 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 – Rule 2’s opening phrase “Save as otherwise provided in these rules” permits the application of other provisions – Rule 17 intended to address regularization of contractual employees and counting of their past service for pension – Voluntariness of entering into contractual services not applicable post-regularization – Appellant’s argument of exclusion under Rule 2(g) not persuasive – Appeal dismissed, directions issued for exercise of pension option and processing within specific timeframe. [Para 1 – Para 11]

Civil Revision – Scope Post CPC Amendment – Section 115 CPC – Revisional Jurisdiction Curtailed – The 1999 amendment to Section 115 CPC removed the High Court's power to entertain revisions against interlocutory orders unless they result in final disposal of the suit – Held: The amendment curtails statutory revision but does not affect constitutional remedies under Articles 226 and 227 – Certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction remain unaffected [Paras 3-5, 33].

Judicial Review – Articles 226 and 227 – Scope Remains Intact – Notwithstanding the CPC amendment – The High Court's power to issue a writ of certiorari or exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts is constitutional and cannot be abrogated or diluted by statutory amendment – Held: The bar under Section 115 CPC does not oust judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 [Paras 28, 33, 37(1)].

Writ of Certiorari – Against Civil Courts – Maintainability – The appellant challenged an interlocutory order refusing injunction by invoking Article 226 – High Court held it was not maintainable as the lis was between private parties – Held: A writ of certiorari lies against acts of courts and tribunals performing judicial/quasi-judicial functions even if parties are private – Orders of subordinate courts can be quashed where they suffer from jurisdictional errors or violate natural justice [Paras 36-37(3), (5)].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Distinct from Certiorari – Wider in Scope – Article 227 empowers High Courts to keep subordinate courts within bounds of their jurisdiction – Unlike certiorari, supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised suo motu and may include directions and substitution of decisions – Held: The distinction between Article 226 and Article 227 remains doctrinally intact, though often blurred in practice [Paras 21-24, 37(4), (9)].

Access to Remedy – No Revision under Section 115 CPC – Judicial Review Still Available – The High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition as non-maintainable solely due to the private nature of parties – Held: Curtailment of statutory revision does not mean absence of remedy – The constitutional remedy of judicial review remains available where gross injustice is shown [Paras 2, 34-36, 38].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable – Held: The writ petition is restored to the file of the High Court for reconsideration on merits either under Article 226 or Article 227, as applicable [Paras 39-40].

Criminal Appeal – Bail Application – Appellant, a retired police officer, accused in various offenses under IPC, Arms Act, and UAPA – Initially denied bail by Special Court and High Court – Appeals to Supreme Court. [Para 1-3]

Charges and Allegations – Accused of involvement in planting gelatin sticks and a murder conspiracy – High Court found a “feeble attempt” to connect appellant to gelatin sticks case – UAPA charges deemed “insignificant” at this stage by High Court. [Para 6-7]

Role of Appellant – Alleged involvement with co-accused Sachin Waze and others in the murder of Mansukh Hiren – High Court observed these to be matters of trial, requiring evidence and circumstantial proof. [Para 8-9]

Appellant’s Custody – Held in custody since June 17, 2021 – High Court’s concern about interference in the trial weighed against his long service as a police officer and family conditions – Court deemed it unnecessary to continue appellant’s custody. [Para 10-12]

Decision – High Court and Special Court’s decisions set aside – Appellant granted bail subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. [Para 13]