NIA Act – Continuation of Investigation – Once the Central government directed the NIA to take over the investigation under Section 6(4) of the NIA Act, the ATS Nanded had a duty to continue the investigation until the NIA actually took over – The investigation by ATS Nanded and filing of the charge-sheet were valid under Section 6(7) of the NIA Act [Paras 19-23].

Jurisdiction – CJM and ASJ Nanded – Designation of CJM Nanded as remand court and ASJ Nanded as Special Court for cases filed by ATS Nanded under the CrPC – These courts had jurisdiction to handle the case until the NIA Mumbai took over the investigation on 8 December 2016 and transferred it to the NIA Special Court Mumbai [Paras 24-49].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Held – High Court’s order affirmed – ATS Nanded's continuation of investigation and CJM Nanded's committal to trial were legitimate – The appeals stand dismissed [Paras 50-51].

Industrial Disputes Act – Jurisdiction – Civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit structured on the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act – Plaintiff’s claim based on ID Act must be adjudicated by appropriate forums under the ID Act – High Court rightly set aside lower courts’ judgments favoring the plaintiff – Decree by civil court declared null and void due to lack of jurisdiction [Paras 2-16].

Termination of Employment – Continuous Service – Plaintiff claimed continuous service for 2778 days – Civil court found plaintiff had completed 240 days of continuous service as per Section 25B of the ID Act – Termination without complying with Section 25F of the ID Act invalidated – However, High Court ruled civil court could not adjudicate such matters [Paras 3-7].

Execution Proceedings – Decree and Jurisdiction – Objection to decree execution on grounds of jurisdiction raised by the defendant – High Court upheld objection, nullifying the civil court’s decree – Jurisdictional objection can be raised at any stage, including execution [Paras 7-10].

Equitable Relief – Back Wages – Considering the plaintiff’s hardship, arrears paid under the civil court’s decree not to be recovered despite decree’s nullity – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment affirmed – Decree by civil court set aside due to lack of jurisdiction.

Specific Performance – Non-service of Notice – Appeal against High Court’s rejection of condonation of delay due to non-service of notice following change of address – Appellant produced documents proving address change – High Court did not conduct proper inquiry or make findings disbelieving the appellant’s explanation – High Court erred in dismissing appeal solely on limitation grounds – Delay condoned and High Court directed to admit and expedite hearing of second appeal [Paras 1-14].

Condonation of Delay – Address Change – Appellant failed to receive notice due to address change from Amalner to Nashik – Produced voter list and Aadhar card as proof – Respondent contended appellant’s name still existed in voter list of Amalner – Proper inquiry not conducted by High Court – Application for condonation of delay should have been allowed [Paras 4-7, 14].

Appellate Jurisdiction – High Court’s Approach – High Court should take a lenient view on condonation of delay considering advocate-client communication gaps – Appellant deprived of hearing opportunity in specific performance suit – High Court directed to admit and dispose of appeal expeditiously [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – High Court directed to admit and expedite hearing of second appeal – No order as to costs [Paras 14-18].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Quashing of Complaint – High Court erred in quashing proceedings under Section 138 based on pending suit challenging compromise deed – Compliance with Section 138 NI Act constitutes an offence upon dishonour of cheques – Question of liability to be determined at trial – Quashing set aside, complaints reinstated [Paras 1-15, 33-54].

Compromise Deed – Legal Enforceability – Settlement agreement executed between parties not invalidated by pending challenge – Once compromise is entered, original complaint cannot proceed – Breach of settlement results in fresh cause of action under Section 138 – High Court's quashing based on compromise deed being contested was incorrect [Paras 18-45].

Multiple Prosecutions – Cheque Dishonour – Parties cannot be subjected to parallel proceedings under Section 138 for the same transaction – Settlement subsumes original complaint – Fresh cause of action arises from dishonoured cheques issued under settlement [Paras 34-40].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order quashing second complaint under Section 138 set aside – Original complaints quashed – Second set of complaints to proceed.

Criminal Law – Non-Joinder of Trials – The High Court's direction for retrial by combining FIRs for gang rape and abetment of suicide due to perceived prejudice from separate trials – Prosecution case involved gang rape resulting in the prosecutrix's suicide – High Court remitted conviction and acquittal orders for retrial under Section 223 CrPC – Separate trials not found to have caused prejudice – Retrial after significant lapse of time deemed to cause miscarriage of justice – High Court's order set aside [Paras 1-20].

Retrial – Principles and Discretion – Appellate court's power to order retrial to be exercised in exceptional circumstances – Retrial should avert miscarriage of justice – Multiple accused convicted/acquitted in separate trials – High Court's direction for retrial by combining FIRs found unjustified – Acquittal or conviction not to be set aside solely based on possibility of joint or separate trials – High Court's judgment criticized for failure to demonstrate clear prejudice [Paras 21-28, 33-54].

Joint and Separate Trials – Legal Framework – Application of Sections 218-223 CrPC governing joinder and separation of charges – Separate trials usual, joint trials exceptional unless proved to cause miscarriage of justice – Appellate court must determine prejudice from separate trials before ordering retrial [Paras 29-38].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment for retrial set aside – Convictions and acquittals from original separate trials maintained – Retrial found unnecessary and prejudicial [Paras 39-45].

Anticipatory Bail – Cancellation – High Court granted anticipatory bail ignoring material aspects such as the nature and gravity of the offence and the specific allegations against the accused – Deficiencies in the investigation highlighted by JMFC and trial court, including failure to consider eyewitness statements, reliance on selective CCTV footage, and lack of fingerprint analysis – High Court's order set aside due to improper exercise of discretion in granting bail [Paras 1-20, 24-30].

Deficiencies in Investigation – Investigation ignored crucial evidence: failure to consider statements of eyewitnesses, reliance on CCTV footage post-incident, non-collection of relevant CCTV footage, reliance on call data records without verifying usage, and absence of fingerprint analysis – Orders for further investigation and supplementary challan indicated significant omissions by the investigating officer [Paras 11-28].

Legal Principles for Anticipatory Bail – Principles outlined in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) reiterated – High Court's order quashed due to failure to consider relevant factors and clear deficiencies in the investigation – Importance of assessing the severity of the offence and ensuring justice highlighted [Paras 24-30].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgments granting anticipatory bail to the respondents set aside – Anticipatory bail cancelled – Case remanded for further proceedings in line with the judgment.

Service Law – Selection Process – High Court set aside the appointment of the appellant to the post of Junior Lab Technician on grounds of arbitrariness in marks allocation for experience and interview – Selection Committee's criteria for allocating marks after advertisement found to change "rules of the game" – Division Bench of the High Court erred in examining the entire selection list to determine arbitrariness when the respondent only challenged appellant's selection [Paras 13-20].

Experience and Interview Marks – Appellant had relevant experience in government medical institutions, receiving higher marks in experience and interview categories compared to respondent who had lesser and private practice experience – Selection Committee's criteria to favor candidates with experience in government institutions justified – Division Bench's decision to quash selection based on alleged discrepancies in marks allocation erroneous [Paras 15-20].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – Court should not sit in appeal over the decision of expert bodies like Selection Committees unless bias or mala fides are evident – High Court transgressed limits of judicial review by reassessing entire selection list and not just the specific appointment challenged [Paras 16-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment quashing appellant's appointment set aside – Appointment of appellant to the post of Junior Lab Technician upheld [Paras 21-22].

Penal Code – Gang Rape – Conviction – Conviction under Section 376D IPC questioned – Evidence of the prosecutrix indicates repeated rape by the appellant over four months – No conclusive evidence of common intention or aiding by co-accused to establish gang rape – Conviction under Section 376D IPC modified to Section 376 IPC [Paras 9-12].

Evidentiary Value – Discrepancies and Contradictions – Discrepancies in prosecutrix's statements regarding initial complaint and her age – Medical evidence confirming pregnancy aligns with prosecutrix's statement of repeated rape – Minor contradictions do not negate the core of the prosecution’s case – Conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC upheld [Paras 6-11].

Sentencing – Appropriate Sentence – Incident occurred in 2013, prior to the amendment increasing minimum sentence under Section 376 IPC – Considering all circumstances, including appellant's lack of criminal antecedents and personal situation, sentence reduced to period already undergone (over 8 years) – Sentence for other charges and fines confirmed [Paras 14-16].

Judgment and Sentence:

Conviction and sentence under Sections 363, 366, and Section 4 of POCSO Act confirmed.

Conviction under Section 506 IPC set aside.

Conviction under Section 376D IPC modified to Section 376 IPC – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Fine and default sentence maintained.

Appellant to be released on payment of fine, provided he is not required in any other case [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Conviction under Section 376D IPC modified to Section 376 IPC – Sentence for other charges confirmed – Appellant ordered to be released subject to fine payment.

Lok Adalat – Jurisdiction and Authority – Lok Adalat has jurisdiction only to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute – If no compromise or settlement is reached, the Lok Adalat must return the case to the referring court – Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide the matter on merits in the absence of a settlement – Impugned order by Lok Adalat dismissing the writ petition on merits held unsustainable and quashed [Paras 1-10].

Compromise and Settlement – Legal Parameters – Lok Adalat's role limited to facilitating mutual settlement or compromise – Any decision on merits by Lok Adalat, in absence of settlement, beyond its jurisdiction – Case returned to High Court for disposal according to law [Paras 6-9].

Legal Services Authorities Act – Interpretation – Sections 20(3) and 20(5) of the Act clarify that Lok Adalat's mandate is to assist in reaching a compromise or settlement – If unsuccessful, the case must be reverted to the original court – Jurisdiction limited to compromise efforts, without authority for merit-based decisions [Paras 6.1-6.2, 7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order passed by Lok Adalat on 30.11.2013 quashed – High Court directed to restore and decide Writ Petition No. 8074 of 2011 on merits in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 9-10].