Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 500, 34 – Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a)(b)(c) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of defamation complaint – Appellant-homebuyers, dissatisfied with the services provided by developer, erected a banner detailing their grievances -- Peaceful and orderly protest made without using offensive or abusive language -- It could not be said that the appellants transgressed into the offending zone -- Their case wholly falls within the sweep, scope and ambit of exception 9 to Section 499 -- Their peaceful protest is protected by Article 19(1)(a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India -- Criminal proceedings levelled against them, if allowed to continue, will be a clear abuse of process -- Complaint along with the order issuing summons to the appellants u/s 500 read with Section 34 of the IPC quashed and set aside.

(Para 30-35)

A. Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Recruitment initiated – Advertisement made – Non-challenge to – Effect of -- Private respondent did not challenge the advertisement in its entirety (nor did anyone else) -- Hence, the advertisement holds the field and it is only under this advertisement that the respective rights of the appellant and private respondent can be determined.

(Para 15)

B. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Recruitment initiated – Advertisement made – Midway change – Permissibility of -- Recruitment process had begun with the publication of the advertisement calling for applications and the process ends with filling of the vacancies -- The selection process had begun and midway changes could not have taken place – Held, once an eligibility criteria was declared by means of a fresh Advertisement, the same cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process, as the same would tantamount to ‘changing the rules of the game, after the game is played’.

(Para 16, 21)

C. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Advertisement made – Qualified candidate – Right of -- Once it is accepted that the DSP post in question was reserved for ‘SC Sports (Women)’ as per advertisement, the appellant must be accepted as the only person qualified in her category who could be appointed as she is the only SC woman candidate who successfully cleared all the tests for the post of DSP.

(Para 23)

A. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 33, 33A – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Loss of confidence in employee – Pleadings – Requirement of -- Illegal discharge/ dismissal from service – Effect of -- Findings with regard to the loss of confidence in an employee can be returned by the learned Labour Court provided it is pleaded and proved by the employer that :

(a) the workman is holding a position of trust and confidence;

(b) by abusing such position, he commits acts which result in forfeiting the same;

(c) to continue him in service would be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer or would be detrimental of the discipline or security of the establishment.

No such pleading that there was a loss of confidence in the employee -- Court is a slave of pleadings and adjudication has to be within the ambit of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence which is led by the parties to substantiate the pleadings --  Conclusions cannot be drawn by the Court in air on its own whims and fancies without taking into consideration the respective contentions and stand of the parties – Findings returned to this effect by learned Labour Court are perverse, bad, beyond the pleadings and not sustainable in law – Writ allowed, petitioner is deemed to have continued in service as from the date of his illegal dismissal, entitling him to all benefits available, monetary and otherwise.

(Para 16-26)

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Section 33, 33A – Loss of confidence in employee – Non-approval by Labour Court -- Discharge/ Dismissal from service – Effect upon -- If the approval sought by the employer under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not granted by the learned Labour Court, then nothing more is required to be done by the employee as it will have to be deemed that the order of discharge or dismissal was never passed and consequence of it is that the employee is deemed to be in continuous service, entitling him all the benefits.

(Para 24)

Constitution of India, Article 243U -- President of Municipal Council -- Conversion of Municipal Council to Corporation – Contention that as term of Municipal Council is five years, in accordance with the Constitutional provisions, the Council has a right to continue for a period of five years – Held, Article 243-U shall have its forcibility provided the Council is still there -- If a decision is taken by the State to convert a Council into a Corporation then, as from the date when the Council become a Corporation, its term would end automatically.

(Para 6, 7)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ petition – Challenge to orders of quasi-judicial authorities -- Cause of action arose to father – Locus standi of son after 30 year -- Father of the petitioners died in the year 2015 -- Orders which now being assailed by the petitioners was in existence for almost 30 years as till the date when the father of the petitioners died and in his wisdom the father of the petitioner, never assailed it – Held, petitioners do not have any locus to file and maintain the writ petition.

(Para 3, 4)

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 173 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 – Cognizable offence – Registration of FIR -- Sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS makes a significant departure from Section 154 of CrPC.

-- It provides that when information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence which is made punishable for 3 years or more but less than 7 years is received by an officer-in-charge of a police station, with the prior permission of a superior officer as mentioned therein, the police officer is empowered to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter.

-- Sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS is an exception to sub-Section (1) of Section 173.

Under sub-Section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS, after holding a preliminary inquiry, if the officer comes to a conclusion that a prima facie case exists to proceed, he should immediately register an FIR and proceed to investigate. But, if he is of the view that a prima facie case is not made out to proceed, he should immediately inform the first informant/complainant so that he can avail a remedy under sub-Section (4) of Section 173.

(Para 42(i)(ii))

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 173 -- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 196, 197, 299, 302 – Promoting enmity – Prejudicial to national integration – Intent to insult religion feelings -- Registration of FIR – Preliminary enquiry – Requirement of -- Police officer to whom information is furnished will have to read or hear the words written or spoken, and by taking the same as correct, decide whether an offence under Section 196 is made out -- Reading of written words, or hearing spoken words will be necessary to determine whether the contents make out a case of the commission of a cognizable offence -- Same is the case with offences punishable under Sections 197, 299 and 302 of BNS -- To ascertain whether the information received by an officer-in-charge of the police station makes out a cognizable offence, the officer must consider the meaning of the spoken or written words -- This act on the part of the police officer will not amount to making a preliminary inquiry which is not permissible under sub-Section (1) of Section 173.

(Para 42 (iii))

C. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 173 -- Constitution of India, Article 19 – Life and liberty – Freedom of speech – Reasonable restrictions – Preliminary enquiry for FIR -- Article 19(1)(a) confers a fundamental right on all citizens to freedom of speech and expression -- Police machinery is a part of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution -- Moreover, the police officers being citizens, are bound to abide by the Constitution -- They are bound to honour and uphold freedom of speech and expression conferred on all citizens -- Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution carves out an exception to the fundamental right guaranteed under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 19 -- If there is a law covered by clause (2), its operation remains unaffected by sub-clause (a) of clause (1) -- When an allegation is of the commission of an offence covered by the law referred to in clause (2) of Article 19, if sub-Section (3) of Section 173 is applicable, it is always appropriate to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused -- This will ensure that the fundamental rights guaranteed under sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 19 remain protected -- Therefore, in such cases, the higher police officer referred to in sub-Section (3) of Section 173 must normally grant permission to the police officer to conduct a preliminary inquiry.

(Para 42(iv)(v))

D. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 196 – Promoting enmity – When an offence punishable under Section 196 of BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds -- The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position.

(Para 42(vi)

E. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Quashing of FIR -- Investigation is at a nascent stage -- There is no absolute rule that when the investigation is at a nascent stage, the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to quash an offence by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the CrPC equivalent to Section 528 of the BNSS --   When the High Court, in the given case, finds that no offence was made out on the face of it, to prevent abuse of the process of law, it can always interfere even though the investigation is at the nascent stage -- It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the nature of the offence -- There is no such blanket rule putting an embargo on the powers of the High Court to quash FIR only on the ground that the investigation was at a nascent stage.

(Para 42(vii)

F. Constitution of India, Article 19(1(a) -- Free expression of thoughts and views by individuals or group of individuals is an integral part of a healthy civilised society -- Without freedom of expression of thoughts and views, it is impossible to lead a dignified life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution -- In a healthy democracy, the views, opinions or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view -- Even if a large number of persons dislike the views expressed by another, the right of the person to express the views must be respected and protected -- Courts are duty-bound to uphold and enforce fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India -- If the police or executive fail to honour and protect the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Courts to step in and protect the fundamental rights -- There is no other institution which can uphold the fundamental rights of the citizens.

(Para 42(viii)

G. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 196 – Promoting enmity/ hatred – It cannot be seen to be so shaky on our fundamentals that mere recital of a poem or for that matter, any form of art or entertainment, such as, stand-up comedy, can be alleged to lead to animosity or hatred amongst different communities -- Subscribing to such a view would stifle all legitimate expressions of view in the public domain which is so fundamental to a free society.

(Para 42(ix)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction – Three post of Steno advertised – Four additional person appointed, including appellants  -- Termination – Non-payment of salary -- State as well as the High Courts are expected to be model litigants -- The High Court is not expected to take a hyper-technical view, when dealing with the case of payment of salary of the employees of the District Judiciary, who have actually put in eight years of service -- Respondents directed to pay the salary of the appellant and other similarly circumstances persons for the period during which they have actually worked in the District Court along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date on which the salaries ought to have been paid to them -- Appellant would also be entitled to costs quantified at Rs.1 lakh.

(Para 4.1, 12, 13-17)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Delayed submission of Medical bill for re-imbursement of deceased employee beyond 90 days – Rejection of – Permissibility of -- If an employee has died during treatment, his wife/ heirs should not be harassed for technical reasons -- Such a rule that prescribes for submitting medical bills for reimbursement may at times be put to strict compliance where employee is alive but in case of heirs where employee has died during treatment, such rules should not be permitted to come in the way of reimbursement of genuine claims of medical bills -- Petitioner directed to submit again the medical bills within a period of four weeks, concerned respondent shall clear the same as per relevant rules by taking appropriate decision within a period of two weeks.

(Para 6, 7)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 14 – Constitution of India, Article 226, 300A -- SARFAESI – Assets Recovery Company as Assignee -- Possession by police officer – Permissibility of – Maintainability of writ -- Section 14 empowers the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to take possession of the property -- Section 14(1-A) further empowers the District Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to “authorized any Officer subordinate to him” to take possession of the said assets.

-- ADM delegated the Additional Commissioner of Police with a further power to delegate it to a Police Officer for taking the possession -- In addition, the petitioners were also deprived of their possession over movable assets (which were not hypothecated/ mortgaged).

Possession of the immovable and the movable assets have been taken by the Government Authorities -- Remedy of issuance of a writ court be available as prima facie, there was a violation of the rights vested by virtue of Article 300A of the Constitution of India -- Writ petition allowed, however, with liberty to take possession in accordance with law strictly in terms of the mandate of Section 14 (1-A) of the SARFAESI Act.

(Para 17-25)

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2001, Rule 24(4) -- Scuffle between judicial officers -- Discharge of Probationer Judicial Officers – Rule of natural justice -- Order of discharge of services of petitioners as probationer are clearly stigmatic which required inquiry prior to discharge from service -- Since the order of discharge of service of petitioners is punitive in nature, the maxim of Audi alterm partem was required to be followed prior to their discharge.

(Para 7, 94)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction -- Judgment reserved -- Vacation of stay order – Requirement of law -- Interim relief was in operation for two and a half years -- While reserving the order, fairness required that the interim relief should have been continued for a reasonable time to enable the appellant to challenge the order vacating stay – Direction given that interim order shall continue to operate till the order/judgment in the writ petition is pronounced -- If the writ petition is dismissed, the High Court will extend the interim relief for a reasonable time to enable the appellant to challenge the final order.

(Para 3, 4)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Challenge to reservations rules in Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability of -- Concern of the petitioner for maintaining the percentage of reservation of seats in medical specialities for the reserved category candidates could be genuine but, unless the specific cases of the candidates arise for consideration before the Court, such an issue cannot be decided in abstract -- Such a question cannot be considered in a Public Interest Litigation -- Writ petition disposed of with observation that whenever any such issue arises for consideration before any of the High Courts, the High Courts would consider the same on its individual merits, in accordance with law.

(Para 2, 3, 16-18)

Constitution of India, Article 225, 226 -- Power of Chief Justice – Roaster of Court – Judgment/ Order without Roster – Writ jurisdiction -- A judicial order based on consent of the parties, which is in the teeth of the Writ Rules and seeks to unsettle and even override the determination made by the Chief Justice, could not have vested jurisdiction in the appellate court to hear the pending writ petition -- As a sequitur, the Division Bench which passed the impugned order could not have assumed unto itself the jurisdiction to decide the writ petition based on the earlier order -- Chief Justice of the High Court, being the primus inter pares, has been vested with the power and authority to set the roster -- Such roster is final and binding on all the ‘Companion Justices’ of the said court -- Plainly, therefore, the impugned order are without jurisdiction -- Writ petition revived, Chief Justice of the High Court requested to assign the writ petition to an appropriate bench for its consideration and disposal.

(Para 7-9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 473 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Pre-mature release -- When the Presiding officer's opinion is sought, the Presiding Officer must submit his opinion at the earliest considering the fact that the issue of liberty of the convict is involved.

(Para 20)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 473 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Pre-mature release -- Duty of Government -- It is the obligation of the appropriate Government to consider cases of all convicts for grant of premature release as and when they become eligible for consideration in terms of the policy -- It is not necessary for the convict or his relatives to make a specific application for grant of permanent remission -- District Legal Services Authorities shall maintain the relevant date of the convicts and as and when they become eligible to a consideration for grant of premature release, they shall do the needful -- The State Legal Services Authorities shall endeavour to create a portal on which the data as aforesaid can be uploaded on real time basis.

(Para 21(a)(g))

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 473 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Pre-mature release – Policy for -- States and Union Territories that do not have a policy dealing with the grant of remission in terms of Section 432 of the CrPC or Section 473 of the BNSS to formulate a policy within two months.

(Para 21(b))

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 473 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Pre-mature release – Speaking order -- Communication of -- Order granting or refusing the relief of permanent remission must contain brief reasons -- The order containing reasons should be immediately communicated to the convict through the office of the concerned prison -- The copies thereof should be forwarded to the Secretaries of the concerned District Legal Services Authorities -- It is the duty of the prison authorities to inform the convict that he has the right to challenge the order of rejection of the prayer for the grant of remission.

(Para 21(d))

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 432 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 473 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Pre-mature release – Remission – Cancellation of – Opportunity of hearing -- An order granting permanent remission cannot be withdrawn or cancelled without giving an opportunity of being heard to the convict -- An order of cancellation of permanent remission must contain brief reasons.

(Para 21(e))

A. Constitution of India, Article 245 -- functus officio -- Rule-making power of the legislature cannot be curtailed or nullified by application of the concept of functus officio -- The principle of functus officio normally applies to a judicial forum or a quasi-judicial authority and would have no application to the rule-making authority which is within the domain of the State Government by virtue of Article 245 of the Constitution of India.

(Para 42)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 226, 245 -- Statutory rules – Rule of natural justice – Opportunity of hearing – Requirement of -- It is a well-settled principle of law that while administrative actions and statutory rules that impact citizens’ rights are subject to judicial review, the notion that the State must provide a prior hearing to affected individuals during the exercise of its rule-making power is fundamentally flawed.

(Para 45)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), Section 5, 5A, 22(3)(4), 36AD – Matrimonial dispute/ FIR -- Freezing of Bank account -- Maintainability of writ against Schedules Private Bank – Petitioner company deposited more than 10 crores in its current account maintained with the respondent bank -- Withdrawal of amount belonging to petitioner from its current account withheld by the respondent bank on account of its unilateral decision to freeze the petitioner’s bank account on the request of third respondent (wife) of Authorised signatory/ Director.

-- No order passed by any competent court to freeze the petitioner’s bank account.

-- No action or order of the investigating authority in any criminal case to freeze such bank account, either.

-- No provision exists in law conferring authority upon the respondent bank to adjudicate private claims of the Director regarding their matrimonial dispute.

Respondent bank has no jurisdiction to entertain the request of the third respondent and thereby freeze petitioner’s account and deny withdrawal -- Objection of the respondents with regard to maintainability of the writ petition dismissed -- Writ petition allowed, order passed by the respondent bank quashed.

(Para 1, 25-32)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Show cause notice – Challenge to -- Writ jurisdiction -- Writ Court should not entertain any petition, seeking to challenge a show cause notice unless the Court is convinced that the same has been issued by an authority having no jurisdiction, or the same is tainted with mala fides.

(Para 16)

B. Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 74 -- Breach of contractual obligations -- Punitive measures – Blacklisting of contractor -- A mere allegation of breach of contractual obligations without anything more, per se, does not invite any such punitive action.

(Para 34)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- M.P. Veterinary Department Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment & Conditions of Service Rules, 1979 -- Part time sweeper – Regular pay scale -- Appellants were appointed on the ground of recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted by Collector, against the vacant posts as part time sweepers at Collector’s prescribed rates -- Appellants were appointed for posts reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes under Special Recruitment Drive -- They are covered under Clause 6 of the Circular dated 10.05.1984 since they have completed three years and fulfil all the conditions stipulated in the Circular to grant revised pay-scale -- Designation as ‘part-time’ sweepers does not affect the validity of their appointment since they were appointed against sanctioned posts nevertheless -- Appellants fighting this battle for regular pay-scale since 2016 and they have extended their service to the State for substantial years -- But more importantly they have proven that their situation is covered under the State issued Circular and Rules – Held, it confers upon them a legal right to avail regular pay-scale.

(Para 13-18)

Constitution of India Article 14, 16, 309 – Appointment of teachers -- Change in eligibility criteria – Permissibility of -- Advertisement was issued on 19.07.2023 and the eligibility criteria was set out as per 2022 Recruitment Rules -- By which the candidates must have passed Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by the State of Jharkhand – By notice dated 10.01.2024, applications were called from the residents of Jharkhand possessing CTET and STET qualification between 19.01.2024 to 23.01.2024 -- Amendments in 2022 Recruitment Rules were brought on 29.01.2024 with intent to give statutory backing for changing the eligibility in the on-going recruitment process -- Later, the amendment in the advertisement was made --  Held, this amount to change the rules of game after the game has begun – Therefore, the entire action on the part of the State Government is arbitrary and contrary to the law -- Revised eligibility criteria introduced cannot be applied to the ongoing recruitment process.

(Para 57, 58)

Constitution of India, Article 141 -- Domestic worker – Rights of –  Despite their growing demand, this indispensable workforce has also been the most vulnerable to exploitation and abuse -- Direction given to the Ministry of Labour and Employment in tandem with the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Ministry of Women and Child Development, and the Ministry of Law and Justice, to jointly constitute a Committee comprising subject experts to consider the desirability of recommending a legal framework for the benefit, protection and regulation of the rights of domestic workers -- The composition of the Expert Committee is left to the wisdom of the Government of India and its concerned Ministries -- It will be appreciated if the Committee submits a Report within a period of 6 months, whereupon the Government of India may consider the necessity of introducing a legal framework which may effectively address the cause and concern of domestic workers.

(Para 39, 55 (iv, v))

A. Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Regularization Policy of the year 1996 dated 18.3.1996 (Haryana) – Regularization of daily wages employee -- Policy of regularization is applicable in rem and benefits admissible to each individual, who is similarly placed, had to be extended by the respondent-State without any discrimination -- Such employees ought not be forced to seek identical reliefs by way of filing separate writ petitions and that a holistic approach is required to be taken by the State Agencies as well as employer to extend the benefits to all similarly placed persons irrespective of the fact whether they have taken recourse to institution of a separate litigation or not.

(Para 23-25)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Regularization Policy of the year 1996 dated 18.3.1996 (Haryana) – Regularization of daily wages employee -- Dealy and laches – Arrears of monetary benefits – Restriction upon -- Certain other persons approached this Court for seeking the benefit in the year 2014, which such writ petitions were allowed in the year 2022 -- The issue of delay and laches/ estoppel did not stand in the way of extending the said benefits, the monetary benefits restricted to a period of 38 months prior to filing of the writ petition(s) to balance the equities – Petitioners held entitled for all consequential benefits including notional fixation of pay and seniority -- However, the financial benefits restricted upto 38 months prior to the filing of the present writ petition.

(Para 24-29)

A. Constitution of India, Article 12, 226 – Writ jurisdiction -- Instrumentality of State -- For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to be an instrumentality or agency of a State or should have been entrusted with such functions as are Governmental or closely associated therewith by being of public importance or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence Governmental.

-- A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State Government; (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.

(Para 10 (1)(2))

B. Constitution of India, Article 12, 226 – Writ against Non-Banking Companies – Maintainability of -- Although a non-banking finance company like the Muthoot Finance Ltd. is duty bound to follow and abide by the guidelines provided by the Reserve Bank of India for smooth conduct of its affairs in carrying on its business, yet those are of regulatory measures to keep a check and provide guideline and not a participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the company -- Writ petition rejected on the ground of maintainability .

(Para 10-12)

A. Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006), Section 18 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 34, 80 – Order/ Award of Micro and Smal enterprises Facilitation (MSEFC) – Challenge to – Alternative remedy of arbitration – Writ jurisdiction :

Following questions referred to a larger Bench of five Judges, namely:

(i) Whether the ratio in M/s India Glycols Limited (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1852) that a writ petition could never be entertained against any order/award of the MSEFC, completely bars or prohibits maintainability of the writ petition before the High Court?

(ii) If the bar/prohibition is not absolute, when and under what circumstances will the principle/restriction of adequate alternative remedy not apply?

(iii) Whether the members of MSEFC who undertake conciliation proceedings, upon failure, can themselves act as arbitrators of the arbitral tribunal in terms of Section 18 of the MSMED Act read with Section 80 of the A&C Act?

The first and second question will subsume the question of when and in what situation a writ petition can be entertained against an order/award passed by MSEFC acting as an arbitral tribunal or conciliator.

(Para 2, 19)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction – Alternative remedy -- Existence of the statutory remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ -- The writ jurisdiction being discretionary by policy, the writ courts generally insist that the parties adhere to alternative statutory remedies, as this reinforces the rule of law -- However, in exceptional cases, writ jurisdiction can still be exercised as a power to access the court for justice and relief.

(Para 15)

Constitution of India, Article 14 – Promotion to Tracer -- Negative equality – Permissibility of – As per Rules, the post of Tracer is to be filled up to 100% by way of direct recruitment -- While referring to two communications appointing two as Tracer on promotion, the petitioner is claiming violation of Article 14, namely the discrimination – Held, Court cannot put a stamp on the illegalities committed by the department while perpetuating the same -- A litigant coming to the Court cannot claim negative discrimination seeking direction from the Court to the department to act in violation of the law or statutory Rules -- It is a settled proposition of law that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality.

(Para 30, 31)

Constitution of India, Article 32, 136 – Judgment of High Court – Whether can be declared illegal -- Writ jurisdiction -- Judgment of the High Court cannot be declared as illegal -- If the petitioners have not been heard and are affected by the said judgment, the remedy available to them is to either file a petition/application for recall of the said order/judgment or to challenge the same by way of a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution.

(Para 3)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Dismissal of judicial officer – Probation -- Opportunity of hearing -- Foundation of the order dispensing with petitioner's service is the complaint filed by his former wife and the report submitted by the Administrative Judge --  Committee relied upon the report of the Administrative Judge -- Petitioner was never issued any charge sheet – Petitioner claims that he was not even supplied copy of the complaint or the statement of his former wife recorded by the Registrar General, he was called in the office of the Registrar General and was asked to give his response there and then -- In the Annual Confidential Reports with respect to years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, he was rated as 'Good Officer' -- District Judge also rated the petitioner as a 'Good Officer' -- Report of Administrative Judge with regard to work and conduct of the petitioner is also without granting him an opportunity of being heard --  Substantially, it can be concluded, the report of the Administrative Judge is based on the complaint filed by the petitioner's former wife – Petitioner ordered to be reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and seniority -- However, the respondent shall have the liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

(Para 4.1)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 226 -- Transfer of prisoner from one jail to another – Challenge to -- It is lucid that transfer of convict prisoner from one prison to another is purely an administrative decision and hence, the same cannot be interfered with by the court unless it is arbitrary and contrary to law.

(Para 15)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21 – Right of prisoner – Dignify life -- It is imperative on the part of the prison authorities to rehabilitate the prisoners into law abiding citizen, besides maintaining security and rule of law in the prison -- Prison administration needs to be reformed for creating a better environment and prison culture to ensure the prisoners enjoy their right to dignified life under Article 21 -- It is essential to continuously monitor the physical conditions prevailing in the prison, compliance with basic and fundamental rights of the prisoners, etc. -- State recognizes that a prisoner loses his right to liberty but still maintains his right to be treated as a human being and as person -- His human dignity shall be maintained and all basic amenities should be made available to him -- Discipline and order shall be maintained with firmness, but with no more restriction than is necessary for safe custody and well-ordered community life, with due regard to the maintenance of the rights of prisoners -- Thus, the objective of reforms and rehabilitation of the prisoners has to be pursued diligently.

(Para 3, 17.2)

Constitution of India, Article 309(2) – Appointment based upon Executive orders -- Law is settled that in the absence of rules, recourse to recruitment based on executive orders could be taken.

(Para 12, 13)

***

SARFAESI Act -- NBFCs -- Outstanding debt below Rs 20 lakhs threshold prescribed by Notification dated 12-2-2021 -- SARFAESI proceedings without jurisdiction -- Alternative remedy no bar where challenge raises pure question of law -- Writ petition maintainable -- Demand and possession notices quashed.

***

A. Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Ss. 2(1)(m)(iv), 13(2) and 13(4) -- Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) -- Recovery proceedings -- Invocation of SARFAESI Act -- Central Government Notification dated 12-2-2021 issued under S. 2(1)(m)(iv) prescribing minimum debt threshold of Rs 20 lakhs for notified NBFCs/finance companies -- Outstanding debt below prescribed threshold -- Recourse to measures under Ss. 13(2) and 13(4) without jurisdiction -- Demand notice and possession notice quashed -- Respondents restrained from taking coercive measures except in accordance with law.

(Paras 20-23)

B. Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Section 17 – Writ jurisdiction -- Alternative remedy -- Availability of remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal -- Challenge raising pure question of law relating to jurisdiction and competence of finance company to invoke SARFAESI provisions -- Alternative remedy no bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction -- Writ petition held maintainable.

(Paras 12-15)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 2(12A), 162, 164B – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Hit and run case – Cashless treatment -- Golden hour treatment -- It is the obligation of the Central Government under Sub-Section (2) of Section 162 to make a scheme for cashless treatment of accident victims during the golden hour – It protect the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution -- It is a statutory obligation of the Central Government to frame the scheme -- Central Government directed to make a scheme in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 162 of the MV Act as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, by 14th March 2025.

(Para 4-8)

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Money claim – Writ jurisdiction -- It is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction -- Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie – Writ petition restored for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

(Para 8, 10)

B. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Maintainability of writ – Availability of alternative remedy – Ground of -- Throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence -- Writ petition restored for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

(Para 8, 10)

Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 326 – Compromise after conviction – Compounding of offence -- Recalling of order of SLP – Trial court convicted the appellant u/s 326/ 34 IPC, sentencing R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- -- High Court reduced the sentence to 1 year R.I., while enhancing the fine to Rs. 2,00,000/- -- Special Leave Petition dismissed -- Subsequently, the applicant/ petitioner compromised, Miscellaneous Application filed seeking relief for compounding the offense --  Order dismissing the SLP in limine recalled -- Leave granted, appeal partly allowed -- Conviction confirmed, however, the sentence of one year R.I. reduced to the period already undergone.

(Para 2-8)

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 7 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 21 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Objection to jurisdiction -- Objections regarding the place of suing shall not be allowed unless such objection is taken in the Court/ tribunal of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity – High Court, while exercising its discretion, overlooked the provisions of Section 21 of CPC -- Order passed by High Court set aside -- Proceedings under the IBC will continue in accordance with the law.

(Para 4, 7, 8)

Constitution of India, Article 14, 21, 136 – Right to access court -- Right to access the courts is a cornerstone of our democracy -- However, this right is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly -- When litigants engage in forum shopping, file repetitive and meritless pleas, and deliberately delay proceedings, they erode the very foundation of our legal system -- Petitioner’s repeated and frivolous litigation has wasted the court’s valuable time and resources -- These types of litigants are choking the system of the court, which is resulting in delays in decision of other cases -- It is also the duty of the Courts at different levels to curb such type of litigation so that more time is available for dealing with genuine litigation – SLP dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-

(Para 3, 18-23)

Constitution of India, Article 320 -- Selection process – Increase in number of vacancies -- Public Service Commission – Role of -- Primary role of the KPSC is to aid and facilitate the selection process for ensuring transparency and merit-based recruitment -- Determination of the number of vacancies and the requisition for employees remain the prerogative of the State Government, which is the employer -- Government’s needs evolved, and additional vacancies arose -- It is unreasonable for the KPSC to deny the Government’s request to expand the rank list to include these vacancies, particularly when the process remains within the bounds of the original notification -- Argument that such an expansion would undermine the autonomy of the KPSC is misplaced -- KPSC directed to expand the rank list under the 2014 notification to include the additional vacancies identified by the State Government.

(Para 17-21)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 406 – Constitution of India, Article 142 – Transfer petition -- Rape – Quashing of FIR -- Contents of the FIR clearly suggest that both the parties being adult had consensual relations for years before the complaint was filed alleging that there was backing out of promise to marry -- No case is made out u/s 376 IPC -- FIR and all proceedings subsequent thereto quashed.

(Para 2, 6, 8)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged In Black-Marketing Of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (LV of 1981), Section 3(2) -- Detention order -- Pubic disorder -- Every breach of peace does not lead to public disorder -- When a person can be dealt with in exercise of powers to maintain the law and order, unless the acts of the proposed detainee are the ones which have the tendency of disturbing the public order a resort to preventive detention which is a harsh measure would not be permissible -- Six cases are registered for selling illicit liquor, the Excise Authority did not find it necessary to arrest the appellant even on a single occasion -- It would have been a different matter after releasing on bail, appellant continued with his activities -- Statements of witnesses do not show that the said witnesses were threatened by the appellant in the presence of the villagers which would create a perception in the mind of the villagers that the appellant herein is a threat to the public order -- Detention order set aside.

(Para 13-20)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 239, 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Quashing of FIR – Scope of -- Framing of charge -- Effect of -- High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous without considering the case on merits -- Appellants can apply for discharge, however, the scope of application for discharge is completely different from the scope of a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings -- While arguing a case for discharge, the appellants will not be in a position to rely upon any document which is not the part of charge sheet, ground of abuse of process of law will not be available -- However, in a petition for quashing either u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a wider challenge is available including a challenge on the ground of abuse of process of law -- Impugned order set aside, writ petition restored.

(Para 5-9)

Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Retail and Wholesale Drug License  -- Delay in submission of application beyond time granted by High court – Rejection on that ground – Justification of -- Ends of justice would be well served in case the applications that were filed by the petitioner beyond the time prescribed by High Court, are treated as being in compliance of order passed by High Court and adjudication thereof is done by the concerned Authority on merits of the same, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties – Petition allowed.

(Para 1-7)

A. Constitution of India, Article 14, 309 – 1999 policy instructions issued by the Government of Haryana -- Compassionate appointment – Right of -- Said right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness --  Three years from the date of death of the employee for putting forth a claim by a dependant, which, includes attainment of majority cannot be said to be in any case unjustified or illogical, especially when compassionate appointment is not a vested right -- Appellant attained majority 11 years after the unfortunate death of his father -- Claim rightly rejected by the respondent State.

(Para 15, 16)

B. Constitution of India, Article 14 – Equality – Conferred some rights upon others, wrongfully -- Effect of -- No direction can be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable -- Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea -- The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again -- Equity cannot be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal basis or justification.

(Para 11)

Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (II of 1916), Section 3, 4, 5 – Constitution of India, Article 243-Q – Inclusion in transitional area of Nagar Panchayat – Opportunity of hearing to effected partes -- Notification u/s 3 visits the persons living in the area notified with several civil consequences that may include taxation on properties, deprivation of benefits from government programs and schemes for village areas, etc. – Opportunity of making objections and /or suggestions after publication of draft notification and due consideration of the same by the Governor, are vital and mandatory requirements of the statute -- Each person resident of such area which is subject to such notification, is a stakeholder and is conferred a right by the Act, 1916 to make suggestions and objections -- Such suggestions and objections, when duly filed, have to be accorded due consideration by the Governor, and the State Government cannot brush aside an objection by means of a general denial on the ground that it was not received within the time provided in the draft notification where it has been demonstrated by the petitioner that the objection was duly dispatched and the delivery report of the postal department reflects its delivery to the addressee -- Objections of the petitioners were never considered – Impugned notification / order quashed.

(Para 11, 19, 20)

Constitution of India, Article 30(1) – Minority educational Institution – Legislative/ Administrative Power to change -- Article 30(1) can be classified as both an anti-discrimination provision and a special rights provision -- A legislation or an executive action which discriminates against religious or linguistic minorities in establishing or administering educational institutions is ultra vires Article 30(1).

-- Religious or linguistic minorities must prove that they established  the educational institution for the community to be a minority educational institution for the purposes of Article 30(1);

-- The right guaranteed by Article 30(1) is applicable to universities established before the commencement of the Constitution;

-- The right under Article 30(1) is guaranteed to minorities as defined upon the commencement of the Constitution. A different right-bearing group cannot be identified for institutions established before the adoption of the Constitution;

-- The incorporation of the University would not ipso facto lead to surrendering of the minority character of the institution. The circumstances surrounding the conversion of a teaching college to a teaching university must be viewed to identify if the minority character of the institution was surrendered upon the conversion. The Court may on a holistic reading of the statutory provisions relating to the administrative set-up of the educational institution deduce if the minority character or the purpose of establishment was relinquished upon incorporation; and

The following are the factors which must be used to determine if a minority ‘established’ an educational institution:

i. The indicia of ideation, purpose and implementation must be satisfied. First, the idea for establishing an educational institution must have stemmed from a person or group belonging to the minority community; second, the educational institution must be established predominantly for the benefit of the minority community; and third, steps for the implementation of the idea must have been taken by the member(s) of the minority community; and

ii. The administrative set-up of the educational institution must elucidate and affirm (I) the minority character of the educational institution; and (II) that it was established to protect and promote the interests of the minority community.

The view taken in Azeez Basha’ case AIR 1968 SC 662 that an educational institution is not established by a minority if it derives its legal character through a statute, is overruled -- The question of whether AMU is a minority educational institution must be decided based on the principles laid down in the judgment.

(Para 160, 161)

Reference answered with majority opinion

A. Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354A, 342, 509, 504 -- Compromise acquittal/ quashing of FIR in POCSO – Challenge by private party – Locus standi -- A private party could prefer an appeal against acquittal invoking the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution if the judgment of acquittal led to serious miscarriage of justice -- Such right to a third party to prefer a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is certainly to be recognised and respected in a case where seemingly miscarriage of justice had occurred and still, neither State nor the victim or any relative falling under the term ‘victim’ approached this Court.

(Para 20-22)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 354A, 342, 509, 504 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7, 8 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3( 1)(b) & 3(2)(vii) – POCSO – Compromise quashing of FIR – Quashing by High Court – Challenge to -- Before exercising the power u/s 482, Cr. PC the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime -- Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on the society -- Allegations contained in the subject FIR was not at all even adverted to, before quashing the same -- Order passed by High Court quashed -- Consequently, the FIR, investigation and criminal proceedings pursuant thereto subject to the nature of the report to be filed under Section 173(2), Cr. P.C., be proceeded with against the accused, in accordance with law.

(Para 25-33)

A. Constitution of India, Article 309 -- Recruitment process -- Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies.

(Para 42(1))

B. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 309 -- Eligibility criteria – Change in midway – Permissibility of -- Eligibility criteria for being placed in the Select List, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit -- Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness.

(Para 42(2))

C. Constitution of India, Article 309 – Select list – Right to be appointed -- Decision in K. Manjusree (2008) 3 SCC 512 lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220  -- Subash Chander Marwaha deals with the right to be appointed from the Select List whereas K. Manjusree deals with the right to be placed in the Select List -- The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues.

(Para 42(3))

D. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 309 – Recruitment rules/ procedure – Deviation from – Permissibility of -- Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/ nonarbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved -- Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility -- However, where the Rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps.

(Para 42(4(5))

E. Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 309 –  Select list – Right to be appointment -- Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment -- State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies -- However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.

(Para 42(6)

Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984 (Act No. 18 of 1984) -- Constitution of India, Article 16(2) -- Compassionate appointment in temple-trust – Bonafide Himachali certificate – Requirement of -- Appointment rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not possess the bonafide Himachali Certificate -- Rejection of appointment not at all sustainable in the eyes of law – Appointment on compassionate basis cannot be refused on a ground which defeats the constitutional provisions per se -- No other infirmity in the candidature of the petitioner -- Petition allowed, impugned communication quashed, respondents directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis forthwith.

(Para 5, 9-12)

Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (VI of 1978), Section 8 – Preventive Detention order -- It is probable that Senior Superintendent of Police was fully aware of the fact that the petitioner had applied for his bail before a criminal court of law in connection with his arrest by reference to FIR which was likely to be granted to him and, therefore, in order to pre-empt the release of the petitioner on bail, the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), planned to generate a dossier against the petitioner in order to somehow chain him in confinement in order to frustrate his prospective release on bail by a criminal court of law -- Preventive detention order quashed.

(Para 22-24)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 47, Order 21 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 – Expeditious disposal of execution petition -- Warrants of possession not executed -- Despite the Decree Holder (DH) being present, none came for execution of the warrants of possession -- Objections filed by the judgment debtor dismissed, however, second objections have been filed – Revision petition disposed off with a request to the Executing Court not to grant any unnecessary adjournments and to decide the execution application pending before it expeditiously and in accordance with law.

(Para 2, 3)

Constitution of India, Article 14 – Contractual employee -- Regularization of service -- Petitioner was appointed as a Driver in 2005 on contract basis -- Service of the petitioner was regularized in the year, 2012 -- Petitioner held entitled to regularization from the date of completion of one year contractual service after initial appointment, with all consequential benefits from the due date. Covered matter, Vikram Singh’s case 2023 :HHC: 13114 = (2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 19595.

(Para 7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Quashing of FIR/ Complaint – Duty of High Court -- Beyond holding that there are specific allegations, there is no other analysis by High Court -- Duty of the High Court, when its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked on the ground that the Complaint/ FIR is manifestly frivolous, vexatious or instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, to examine the allegations with care and caution.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 – Dowry case -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Husband not accused in criminal case -- While the husband institutes the civil suit, his wife has chosen to initiate criminal proceedings -- Interestingly, there is no reference of one proceeding in the other -- On 27.02.2013, the husband filed the Special Civil Suit against the three appellants, i.e. his father, stepmother and stepbrother seeking for a declaration that the property is ancestral in nature and that the father has no right to alienate or dispose of the property and also sought a declaration that he is entitled to use the trademark of the family business – Complainant/ wife filed the criminal complaint on 01.03.2013 alleging demand of dowry and threat by appellants that she and her husband will be denied a share in the property -- Provocation for the Complaint/ FIR is essentially the property dispute between father and son – FIR and Chargesheet quashed.

(Para 9, 18)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 – Dowry case -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Husband not accused in criminal case -- Allegations are vague, lacking in basic details -- The essence of the complaint is in the alleged threat to deprive the husband any share in the property with respect to which the husband has already filed the suit for declaration – In DV complaint identical allegations were examined in detail, subjected to strict scrutiny, and rejected as being false and untenable – The case is instance of abuse of criminal process and it would not be fair and just to subject the appellants to the entire criminal law process – FIR and charge-sheet quashed.

(Para 9-18)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Quashing of FIR – Charge-sheet filed -- There is no prohibition against quashing of the criminal proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed.

(Para 16)

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Promotion during pendency of criminal case -- DPC – Charge-sheet thereafter – Putting the result in sealed cover – Legality of -- Disciplinary/ criminal proceedings can be said to be initiated against the employee only when a charge memo is issued to the employee in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in the competent Court -- Sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after issuance of the charge-memo/ charge-sheet -- Pendency of investigation and grant of prosecution sanction will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure.

-- Charge sheet was filed by CBI, after completion of investigation on 25th October, 2008, whereas the DPC to consider the promotion of Additional Commissioners of Income Tax was convened on 22nd February, 2007, wherein the sealed cover procedure was adopted qua the respondent.

-- It is thus clear that the charge sheet against the respondent was filed well after the meeting of the DPC was convened.

Hence, it could not be said that the prosecution for a criminal charge was pending against the respondent when the DPC was convened -- Therefore, the move on the part of DPC to resort to the sealed cover procedure was unjustified and unsustainable on facts and in law -- The ‘Sealed Cover’ wherein the assessment of the respondent was considered by the DPC was opened in court -- Letter shows that the DPC assessed the respondent to be ‘FIT’ for promotion -- Consequential steps in light of the above recommendations shall follow.

(Para 24-29)