FACTS:

The appellants had filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court seeking to quash the Charge Sheet and entire criminal proceedings initiated against them. The case was related to allegations under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC, and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

ISSUES:

Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants' application under Section 482 of the Code without adequately considering the factual aspects of the case.

HELD:

The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments and perusing the record, held that the High Court's dismissal of the appellants' application under Section 482 of the Code was not justified.

The Court noted that the High Court failed to adequately address the factual aspects of the case, including crucial details such as the nature of the complaint/FIR and the grounds on which the proceedings were challenged.

It emphasized the importance of analyzing the factual background before applying legal principles, which the High Court failed to do in this instance.

The Court held that the High Court should have examined the application afresh on its merits, considering both factual and legal aspects of the case.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh consideration.

The High Court was directed to make a reasoned decision based on a complete understanding of the facts and legal principles involved, and to issue notice to the respondents.

The Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case itself and emphasized the need for the High Court to make a reasoned decision.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision.

Facts:

The dispute involves the possession of a flat located in Kozhikode, Kerala.

Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking restoration of possession of the flat.

The High Court granted the writ petition and directed the appellant to restore possession to respondent No. 1.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition.

Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a mandamus for restoration of possession.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition and issuing a mandamus for restoration of possession. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be used to decide disputes between private individuals that are appropriately addressed through civil suits.

The Court found that the dispute over possession of the flat should have been resolved through a civil suit rather than a writ petition. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1. The Court granted liberty to the parties to pursue civil proceedings in the Civil Court for adjudication of their claims.

Additionally, the Court clarified that observations and findings made by the High Court in its order should not be considered in any subsequent civil or criminal proceedings.

Facts:

The appellant, Omveer Singh, filed an appeal against the dismissal of his application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The application sought to quash the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 2540 of 2017, which involved charges under IPC Sections 498A, 323, 376, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellant's application under Section 482 of the Code.

Held:

The Division Bench, after hearing the counsels and examining the record, held that the High Court had not adequately considered the factual matrix of the case before dismissing the appellant's application. The Division Bench observed that the Single Judge focused on legal principles without delving into the specific facts. Therefore, the Division Bench decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with the law.

The Division Bench refrained from delving into the merits of the case and directed the High Court to decide the application uninfluenced by any observations made in their order.

In conclusion, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits.

Facts:

The dispute arose over a fair price shop at Gram Panchayat Ambaghat, Block Godalamau, Tehsil Mishrit District Sitapur (UP).

The appellant, Meera Mishra, and respondent No. 1, Satish Kumar, both claimed rights to operate the shop.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mishrit, canceled Satish Kumar's license for the fair price shop, leading to appeals which were dismissed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division.

Satish Kumar then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow, challenging the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Commissioner.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was correct in allowing Satish Kumar's writ petition and setting aside the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Commissioner.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments of both parties and reviewing the records of the case, held as follows:

The High Court erred in not addressing the matter on merits and solely focusing on the Commissioner's order being inadequately reasoned (Paragraph 12).

The parties were entitled to a decision on merits by the Appellate Court (Commissioner) and then by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction (Paragraph 13).

As a result, the Supreme Court decided to remand the case to the Commissioner for fresh consideration on merits (Paragraph 14).

Both parties were directed to appear before the Commissioner on December 14, 2018, to submit a copy of the Supreme Court's order (Paragraph 16).

The Commissioner was instructed to hear the appeals afresh, considering all issues raised in the case, and to pass a reasoned order within three months from the date of appearance of the parties (Paragraph 17).

Facts:

Manimaran, the respondent, was accused of running a medical shop without a valid drug license.

Drugs Inspectors seized drugs stored without a valid license during an inspection of Manimaran's shop.

Manimaran was charged under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

The trial court convicted Manimaran based on his admission in a memo where he confessed to not having a valid license.

Manimaran appealed, but the appellate court upheld his conviction.

Manimaran filed a revision petition before the High Court, which acquitted him based on non-examination of key witnesses.

Issues:

Whether the non-examination of certain witnesses was fatal to the prosecution's case.

Whether the admission made by Manimaran in the memo was sufficient evidence to convict him.

Whether the carbon copies of documents were admissible as evidence.

Whether Manimaran's claim of signing blank papers was credible.

Held:

The Supreme Court reinstated Manimaran's conviction, emphasizing the importance of his admission in the memo.

Non-examination of certain witnesses was not fatal to the prosecution's case, as Manimaran's admission was sufficient evidence.

Carbon copies of documents were admissible evidence under Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Manimaran's claim of signing blank papers lacked credibility, as he failed to provide evidence to support it.

The Supreme Court reduced Manimaran's sentence from one year to three months considering factors such as the passage of time since the offense, lack of prior convictions, and his admission of ignorance regarding the need for a license.

Facts:

The writ petitioners were employed in various capacities within the State of Bihar.

Their appointments were found to be irregular or illegal due to violations of recruitment procedures and the use of false or forged documents.

The State Government initiated proceedings to terminate their services based on these irregularities.

The matter was challenged before the High Court, leading to a series of appeals and legal proceedings.

The Supreme Court of India heard the case and considered the findings of the State Committee regarding the legality of the appointments.

Issues:

Whether the appointments of the writ petitioners were legal and valid.

Whether the termination of their services was justified.

Held:

The Court upheld the findings of the State Committee, which concluded that many of the appointments were illegal and void ab initio. The Court emphasized the importance of adherence to recruitment rules and procedures, particularly in public employment, to ensure fairness and equality. It cited the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and others, which established that appointments made without following due process do not confer any right on the appointees. The Court also clarified that regularisation or permanent employment cannot be granted to individuals whose initial appointments were illegal or irregular.

Based on these findings, the Court dismissed the civil appeals filed by the writ petitioners and allowed the appeals filed by the State of Bihar. The orders of the High Court directing reinstatement of the writ petitioners were set aside, and their writ petitions were dismissed.

Facts:

The High Court allowed a post-award application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, requiring the appellant to release the amount covered by the arbitral award along with interest, subject to the respondent furnishing a Bank Guarantee equal to the awarded amount for one year. The appellant argued that the High Court's order was premature as the period for challenging the award under Section 34 had not yet expired.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was premature given the pending period for challenging the award under Section 34.

Held:

The Court set aside the High Court's order dated 22 August 2016. It clarified that its judgment should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the correctness of the High Court's order, particularly considering the submission that the High Court might have exceeded its jurisdiction.

The Civil Appeal was disposed of with no costs, and all rights and contentions of the parties concerning the challenge to the arbitral award were kept open to be argued in accordance with the law.

Facts:

The fifth respondent filed a PIL before the Allahabad High Court seeking the construction of a new tehsil building for Tehsil Hasanpur.

The High Court directed the State Government to take steps for the construction based on the petition.

The appellant challenged this order, alleging that the PIL was filed to serve the personal interest of the fifth respondent, as the proposed land belonged to his family.

Issues:

Whether the PIL filed by the fifth respondent was genuinely in the public interest or intended to serve personal interests.

Whether the decision regarding the construction of government buildings is within the jurisdiction of the judiciary or the executive.

Held:

The Supreme Court found that the PIL was not genuinely in the public interest but was intended to serve personal interests, as the proposed land belonged to the fifth respondent's family (Paragraph 8).

The Court emphasized that decisions regarding the construction of government buildings are administrative matters and should be left to the executive. It highlighted the misuse of PILs for extraneous and motivated purposes (Paragraph 9).

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's directions to construct the new Tehsil office and clarifying that the State Government should make the decision in accordance with the law (Paragraph 11).

Facts:

The appellant lodged FIR No.35/2015 against the first respondent alleging harassment and abetment to suicide.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur quashed the proceedings instituted against the first respondent.

The appellant appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings against the first respondent.

Whether the investigation being incomplete and no charge-sheet filed justified the High Court's delve into the intention of the respondent.

Held:

The Court held that the High Court was not justified in delving into questions of the respondent's intention to abet suicide at that stage, especially when the investigation was incomplete and no charge-sheet had been filed. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the concerned authorities to complete the investigation promptly.

The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it to be considered at the appropriate stage. The appeal stands allowed in aforesaid terms.