Category Archives: Blog

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition in which there was a plea made to the court to quash a case of female feticide and abortion after determination of sex which resulted in death of the mother. The plea was made as there was a settlement between the Petitioner and Respondents and hence the High Court was approached to quash the case under Section 432 of CrPC. The court was of the opinion that such offences are not ‘in personam’ but affect the society at large and so the High Court cannot quash such cases under section 482 that includes offences of such gravity.  The ration was laid down in the case of Gurpreet Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., CRM-M-27082-2020.

The facts of the case are that Jyoti was married to Gurpreet Singh i.e. the Petitioner for about 5 years. There was a daughter that was born out of the wedding and she is about 2 year-old. Jyoti conceived again and was four months pregnant. Her husband and mother got her scanning done and found out that she was carrying a female foetus. It was alleged that on 16^th July 2020, the Petitioner and his sister in law i.e. Veero took Jyoti for abortion as she already had one daughter. After the abortion Jyoti had an infection and later she died on 23^rd July 2020. An FIR was filed against the Petitioner and his sister in law. But later there was a compromise reached between the parties where the complainants did not find the Petitioners guilty and had no objection if the FIR is quashed. Hence the Petitioners have approached the High Court to quash the case under Section 482 of CrPC.

The High Court heard the parties on both sides and upholding the precedent of the Supreme Court loid down in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, 2017, AIR (SC) 4843, clearly denied to quash the case. The court stated that the power granted to the High Courts under Section 482 of the CrPC can be implemented in rare cases and definitely not in cases including serious crimes that affect the society at large. The gravity of offences included in the case gives no right to the High Court to quash the case as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the above stated precedent. The Supreme Court in the above precedent with respect to power of High Court under Section 482 states that, “(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.” Further, it was alleged that the abortion was not carried with the consent of the mother hence there was a violation of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. Hence, the High Court dismissed the Petition and ordered proper investigation in this case.

[Please Click here to view the Judgment]

The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail, considering all the facts and circumstances and in light of the allegations made against him, however he is directed to appear before investigating officer within fifteen days of receipt of order. Karnataka High Court held in Nagaraja R. v. State of Karnataka (Crl. Petition No. 5780/2020)

Facts of the case are, the statement of the injured was recorded by the police on 09.10.2020 while he was admitted in McGann Hospital, Shimoga stating that there was dispute between him and the petitioner in the matter of an agricultural land and there used to be frequent quarrels. On 09.10.2020 at about 8.00 a.m. when the informant was in front of the shop near his house, the petitioner/accused armed with club came from behind and assaulted on his hand, leg and other parts of the body, with an intention to cause his death. As a result of which, the complainant sustained bleeding injuries. Immediately, the relatives of the complainant came and shifted him to the hospital. Therefore, he requests for registering the case and accordingly, the police have registered the case and took up investigation.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a false complaint is came to be lodged against the petitioner, as a counter blast for the earlier complaint lodged by his wife against the informant. Also, stating that petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. However, he is ready and willing to abide by the law.

And, the counsel for respondent while opposing the petition, submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The counsel also stated that, the petitioner is absconding since the date of the registration of the case. And therefore the petition shall be dismissed.

However, the court was of the view that, “Crime No. 195/2020 was registered against the first information in the present case in Kumsi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354, 354(A), 354(B) of IPC. The said complaint was came to be lodged on 09.10.2020 between 6.00-6.45 p.m. The present complaint was registered on the very same day at 9.00 pm on the basis of the statement of the complainant recorded while he was taking treatment in the hospital. The medical records are not made available. But however, it is admitted that the first informant is already discharged from the hospital.”

Conclusively, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was granted bail subject to the certain conditions.

Click here to read judgement

In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. This judgment was delivered by three judge bench comprising hon’ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Ajay Rastogi at Supreme Court in the matter of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & anr. v. The State of Rajasthan & ors. [C.A. No. 3649-3650 of 2020].

The appellant in the present appeal alleged that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) issued an advertisement for the purpose of selection of 9,551 Senior Teachers for subjects like Hindi, English, Social Science, Mathematics and Sanskrit. The exam was conducted in written mode for 2 days. Later, after the exam, the RPSC issued the first answer key and declared the result. When the result was declared, the petitioner’s names were there in the selection list but the petitioner made few mistakes in the form where they were supposed to fill their details, they couldn’t be appointed.

The matter first went to a Single Judge bench of the High Court of Rajasthan. An Expert Committee constituted by the RPSC revised the Key Answers for 2 questions in Social Science and 1 question in General Knowledge. The names of the Petitioners were not included in the revised Merit List. The judgment dated 05.05.2018 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench by which 8 questions were referred to the Expert Committee for reconsideration was the subject matter of appeal before a Division bench of the High Court. The High Court examined the correctness of the disputed questions by itself and came to a conclusion that the answers to 5 questions were wrong. After being informed that the results have been announced and the selection process was completed, the Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated 12.03.2019 in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.922 of 2018 directed revision of the Select List and give benefit of the revision only to the Appellants before the Court.

On 13.03.2019, a direction was issued by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench that the names of the ineligible candidates should be deleted from the Select List and a revised Select List shall be issued. The 3rd Answer Key was published by the RPSC on 08.04.2019 but the benefit of the said revision was given only to the Appellants in the D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.922 of 2018. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench on 13.03.2019 was implemented and the Select List was revised on 21.05.2019 by excluding ineligible candidates. The names of 124 candidates were included in the said revised Select List which was prepared on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. A Waiting List was prepared on 22.05.2019 by the RPSC, again on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. 5.

The hon’ble Supreme Court while upholding the Select List dated 21.05.2019 and the wait list dated 22.05.2019 prepared on the basis of the 2^nd answer key, stated that A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel. We are not inclined to give any direction except leaving it open to the RPSC and the State Government to fill up the existing vacancies from the Wait List in accordance with the merits of the candidates. The selection process which was stalled in view of the interim order passed by this Court should be completed within a period of 8 weeks from today. We are not setting aside the judgment as we are informed that 05 out of 21 appellants-therein have already been appointed and we are not inclined to upset their appointments. For the aforementioned reasons, the Appeals are dismissed.

 

Click here to read more

“In the Concluding Report, final list has been annexed, which is utility-wise and personnel-wise, which is clear and unambiguous. We, thus, do not find any merit in the Miscellaneous Applications filed by Telangana State power utilities being M.A. Nos. 1286, 1290, 1292 and 1291, which are dismissed.”, this remarkable stand was forwarded by the Honorable SC in the Miscellaneous appeal case of Telangana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. (TSGENCO) V. Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd., [MIS.A. NO(S). 1270/2020] in [C.A. NO(S). 11435/2018], chaired by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan and Mr. Justice M.R. Shah, The bench in this present case has accepted the submissions of the one-man committee report, thereby disposing all the Miscellaneous appeals.

The High Court vide its judgment dated 02.02.2018 decided the bunch of writ petitions raising the dispute pertaining to allocation of the employees of the power sector undertakings in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The Honorable SC vide its judgment dated 28.11.2018 while upholding the judgment of the High Court with the agreement of the learned counsel for the parties appointed a One-Man Committee consisting of Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, a former Judge of this Court for distributing the personnel between two States.

One-Man Committee proceeded to formulate the modalities for distributing the personnel, prepared the reports allocating the personnel at several stages. The miscellaneous applications were filed in this Court in the civil appeal in pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court in its judgment dated 28.11.2018 permitting the parties to approach the Court by filing an interlocutory application. The present set of miscellaneous applications have been filed by Telangana Power Utilities, certain employees and employees’ associations after submission of the concluding report dated 20.06.2020 by the One-Man Committee. These Miscellaneous Applications have been filed in Civil Appeal No.11435 of 2018 decided by this Court vide judgment dated 28.11.2018. Civil Appeal No. 11435 of 2018 was filed against the common judgment dated 02.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.17994 of 2015 and other connected writ petitions.

After examining all the submissions, arguments and evidences forwarded by the councils, the Hon’ble SC observed that, the above judgment of the High Court having been upheld by this Court, the submission of learned counsel that no allocation process ought to be undertaken for applicants is without any merit. Further, submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that their names were not included in the Final List dated 26.12.2019 also does not in any manner militate against and their names subsequently included for allocation from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State utilities. We having upheld the allocation made by the One-Man Committee from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State also, we find no merit in M.A. No.1287 of 2020, which stands rejected.

The bench further added that, “With regard to other M.A.s, we make it clear that the One-Man Committee was entrusted only with distribution of personnel between the two States, which distribution has been finalized by the One-Man Committee. Insofar as other claims regarding salary or allowances as raised in different M.A.s, they need no consideration in these proceedings and employees of power utilities are free to adjudicate their claims before appropriate forum in accordance with law. All other M.A.s are disposed of accordingly.”

In lieu of the above made considerations and observations, the bench in this present disposed all the M.A.s stating that, “We having found no merit in the objections to One-Man Committee’s Concluding Report dated 20.06.2020 it is obligatory for power utilities of both the States and all concerned to carry out and implement the directions of the One-Man Committee Report.”

Click here to read more

The Delhi High Court in a recent case upheld the order of the special court of inquiry formed by the Sashastra Seema Bal (“SSB”) against the Appellant for dismissal of service and one year of imprisonment. This order was passed against the appellant as the charge against him for not reporting the seizure of 3 gold pieces that weighed half kilogram from smugglers was proved. This judgment was passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 6226/2020.

The facts of the case are that Sunil K Yadav joined the force of SSB as a constable in the year 2011. In the year 2014 he was posted at Narkatiaganj Area, Bihar. On 25.11.2014 he got an input from his source regarding gold smuggling that was going to be carried out in the Saptakranti Express train from Muzaffarpur in Bihar to Delhi. On receiving the input, he informed his superiors and on their orders the appellant conducted the entire operation against the smugglers. After due efforts, the smuggler was taken into custody and the 3 gold pieces weighing half kilogram was recovered from him. The apprehension was duly notified to the superior officers and by this time the Saptakranti Express had already reached Bagaha Railway Station 50 Kilometers away from Narkatiaganj. After reaching the station the Appellant and another constable deboarded the train. After the Sub-Area Organizers (SAOs) came to the Bagaha railway station, all of them proceeded towards Narkatiaganj. However, on the way, the smuggler escaped from the custody of the SAOs. Yadav said he was asked to deposit the recovered gold with the nearest SSB unit at Tuthibari while the SAOs “hurriedly” left the area. Yadav alleged that he was arrested by local Police while on his way to Narkatiaganj. The Central government on the contrary submitted that Yadav was apprehended while he was proceeding with his brother to his home instead of depositing the recovered gold with the SSB unit or the police or the Customs, whose offices were all located in the vicinity.

Sunil K Yadav while appealing to the High Court pleaded that the Doctrine of Equality and Proportionality must be implemented in this case as the other two officers that were along with him had faced no actions and in this case he is being made the scape goat for everything. The Delhi High Court stated that “The petitioner was a member of a disciplined Force and responsible for the security of the country, including economic security. He did not consider it inappropriate to keep smuggled gold in his possession, about the seizure of which no record was also prepared. Absolute honesty and integrity is expected of all government employees and no slip can ever be brooked. Such employees wanting in integrity cannot but be dismissed as their retention in service would send wrong signals and would be counter-productive.” Hence, the petition was dismissed, and the order of the inquiry commission was upheld.

[Please Click here to view the judgment]