Abetment of Suicide - Examination of abetment under Section 306 IPC – Suicide allegedly instigated by petitioners due to financial pressures – FIR based on a suicide note naming the petitioners as contributors to the deceased's stress due to monetary transactions – Court concludes lack of substantial evidence of intentional inducement or pressure amounting to abetment to commit suicide by petitioners – Held, allegations and evidence do not substantiate an offence under Section 306 IPC; proceedings are quashed as they constitute an abuse of process of law. [Paras 1-19]

Role of Accused in Alleged Abetment of Suicide – Analysis finds no actionable evidence that petitioners' actions or behavior had instigated or aided the deceased in committing suicide – Court notes absence of a proximate and intense act leading to suicide, stresses that mere naming in a suicide note or demand for loan repayment does not qualify as abetment under IPC – Emphasizes that accusations need to be substantiated with concrete acts of instigation or assistance in suicide, which are not evident in this case. [Paras 8, 14]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Supplementary Reports – In light of the absence of evidence indicating a direct connection between the petitioners' actions and the suicide of the deceased, and given the findings that the actions complained of do not meet the threshold of abetment under IPC, the FIR and subsequent proceedings are quashed – The court rules that continuing the proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice and misuse of judicial process. [Para 19]

Criminal Law – Acquittal of Accused – Appeal against acquittal in a case of alleged murder of Bipin Kumar – Trial Court acquitted the accused based on lack of evidence – High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no compelling reason to interfere with the Trial Court's judgment [Paras 61-63].

Evidence – Sufficiency of Proof – Prosecution failed to establish motive and connection between the accused and the crime – Lack of credible evidence and witnesses – Circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain leading to the accused [Paras 59-61].

Victim Compensation – Despite the acquittal, the informant, being the victim’s legal heir, is entitled to compensation under Section 357A Cr.PC from Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014 – State directed to compensate the victim [Para 62-63].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld – State to provide compensation to the victim’s legal heir.
 

Bail Application – PMLA Provisions – Petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Contended absence of scheduled offence linkage and non-completion of scheduled offence investigation – High Court evaluated provisions of PMLA, nature of allegations, and evidence presented – Emphasized stringent conditions under Section 45 PMLA for bail – Recognized petitioner’s custodial period and compliance with Income Tax obligations – Court inclined towards granting bail with conditions considering investigation completion and lack of direct involvement in scheduled offence [Paras 1-44].

Investigation and Evidence – Section 50 PMLA Statements – Statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA deemed judicial proceedings – Petitioner’s involvement in money laundering activities inferred from financial transactions and property acquisitions – High Court examined the admissibility and weight of such evidence under Article 20(3) of the Constitution [Paras 5-10, 27-30, 41].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 45 PMLA – Bail Conditions – Analyzed twin conditions for bail under Section 45 PMLA – Court emphasized judicial discretion and balance between societal interests and individual rights – Relied on precedents including Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary v. Union of India and Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate [Paras 11-15, 40-44].

Decision – Bail Application Allowed – Held – Petitioner granted bail with strict conditions to ensure compliance and non-tampering of evidence – Directed petitioner to appear before ED as required and to not engage in any activities undermining the ongoing investigation [Paras 45-46].
 

Medical Negligence – Quashing of FIR – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings – Allegations against a senior gynecologist for leaving a surgical sponge inside a patient during surgery – Initial investigation followed by medical board review and subsequent judicial scrutiny – FIR and criminal proceedings quashed based on lack of conclusive evidence attributing negligence solely to the petitioner – Court emphasizes the higher degree of proof required for criminal negligence compared to civil liability [Paras 1-26].

Evidentiary Standards – Criminal vs. Civil Liability – Court reiterates distinction between negligence in civil and criminal contexts – For criminal liability, negligence must be gross and of a high degree – Importance of establishing mens rea for criminal charges – Medical Board's inconclusive findings on the period the sponge was left inside the patient – Absence of FSL report to determine the timeline of negligence – Petition allowed, but liberty granted to pursue civil remedies [Paras 16-26].

Judicial Precedents – Application of Jacob Mathew Case – Guidelines from Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab applied to determine standard of care and negligence – Supreme Court's direction on medical negligence in criminal law, emphasizing gross negligence and mens rea – Distinction highlighted between professional error and criminal negligence – Case references include Jacob Mathew (2005), A. Srimannarayana (2013), and Simrikhia (1990) [Paras 8-18].

Decision:

Petition Allowed – FIR dated 31.03.2017 lodged at Crime No.134/2017 at Police Station Shujalpur, District Shajapur under Sections 269, 337, 336, and 308 of IPC and the consequent criminal proceedings quashed – Liberty reserved for complainant to pursue civil remedies – Emphasis on higher evidentiary standards for criminal prosecution in medical negligence cases [Paras 25-27].

Corruption – Conviction Appeal – Appellant convicted under Section 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting a bribe while posted as LDC in Naib Tehsildar's office – Appeal contends lack of proof of demand and acceptance – Complainant turned hostile, claimed money was repayment of loan from appellant's wife – Trial Court's judgment examined for evidentiary support [Paras 1-41].

Hostile Witness – Circumstantial Evidence – Complainant's hostility does not absolve prosecution's case – Supreme Court guidelines in Neeraj Dutta (2023) applied – Demand and acceptance can be proven by circumstantial evidence – Tape recording and complainant's initial complaint corroborate prosecution's case [Paras 24-29].

Non-examination of Key Witness – Appellant’s Defense – Non-examination of appellant's wife, alleged lender of money, weakens defense – Promissory note and account book presented as defense not sufficiently substantiated without her testimony – Defense’s introduction of Ram Singh deemed fictitious and implausible [Paras 27-30].

Judicial Precedents – Evaluation – Appellant's cited cases found distinguishable – Proper procedure for tape recording followed and corroborated by independent witness – Promissory note and loan transaction story unconvincing without critical witness testimony [Paras 33-38].

Decision:
Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – Appellant directed to surrender before the Trial Court on or before 31.07.2024 – Trial Court's judgment affirmed, demand and acceptance of bribe proven beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 39-41].
 

Arbitration Award – Lack of Jurisdiction – Appeal against arbitral award on the ground that the court at Indore lacked jurisdiction – Parties had agreed that courts at Ahmedabad alone would have jurisdiction – Held, designation of “venue” as Ahmedabad implies exclusive jurisdiction of Ahmedabad courts – Arbitral award set aside for want of jurisdiction [Paras 1-38].

Non-signatory to Agreement – Binding Effect – Appellant Taj Hotel Resorts not a signatory to the agreement between Respondents 1 and 2 – Agreement and obligations cannot be extended to a non-signatory entity – Arbitral award against non-signatory appellant set aside as it falls beyond the scope of submission to arbitration [Paras 39-41].

Interpretation of Agreement – Emails as Contract Extension – Emails between parties examined to determine if they constitute an extension of the original agreement – Arbitrator’s conclusion of contract extension deemed unreasonable – Award suffers from patent illegality and set aside [Paras 42-44].

Award of Damages – Notice Period – Damages awarded over and above the three months' notice period stipulated in the agreement – Question of damages rendered moot as appeals allowed on jurisdiction and non-signatory grounds [Para 45].

Decision:

Appeals Allowed – Arbitral award set aside due to lack of jurisdiction and non-signatory status of appellant – Appellants entitled to refund of deposited amounts as per Supreme Court’s order [Paras 48-49].

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Prima Facie Evidence and Presumption of Innocence – Petitioners sought bail in a case involving allegations of rape and gang rape added post FIR registration. The High Court granted bail considering the inconsistencies between the initial complaint and subsequent statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the lack of prima facie evidence to support the grave allegations made by the complainant [Paras 1-26].

Evaluation of Evidence – FIR and Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statement – Court observed that the complainant’s FIR did not mention rape or gang rape allegations, which appeared for the first time in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized the distinction between elaboration and improvisation of facts, ruling that the latter, which introduced new allegations without previous mention, weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 20-23].

Legal Principles for Grant of Bail – Reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially under the presumption of innocence principle enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court referenced several Supreme Court judgments outlining the discretionary power in granting bail, focusing on parameters like nature and gravity of accusation, reasonable grounds for believing the accused’s guilt, and conduct of the accused during investigation [Paras 14-18].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioners granted bail on conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and restriction on leaving the Union Territory of J&K without prior permission. The order highlighted the lack of substantive evidence and procedural adherence, emphasizing the need for the prosecution to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt [Para 24].
 

Real Estate Law – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – Relief Sought for Procedural Lapses – The petitioner sought the quashing of orders dismissing her appeals, restoration applications, and review applications for non-prosecution due to her counsel’s non-appearance. The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and set aside the orders, restoring the appeals for a decision on merits [Paras 1-9].

Non-Appearance and Consequences – The petitioner’s appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution when her counsel failed to appear. Restoration and review applications met the same fate, with the Appellate Authority expressing displeasure over the repeated non-appearance [Paras 2-3, 8-9].

Restoration of Appeals – Tribunal's Discretion – Despite procedural lapses, the court found that the petitioner suffered due to her counsel's negligence. The court ordered the restoration of the appeals, emphasizing the need to decide the case on merits to serve justice [Paras 9(i)-9(ii)].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The orders dated 21.04.2022, 04.07.2022, and 16.02.2023 were set aside. The appeals were restored to their original numbers and the Appellate Tribunal was requested to hear and decide the appeals on merits. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 13th May 2024 [Paras 9(ii)].

Vehicle Confiscation – Pending Criminal Proceedings – Petitioner challenges confiscation of Mahindra Bolero under Section 47(A)(2) of the M.P. Excise Act by Collector during pendency of criminal case – Court discusses jurisdiction and timing of confiscation orders in relation to ongoing criminal trials – Conflicting judgments from coordinate benches on whether confiscation can proceed independently of trial outcome – Matter referred to Larger Bench for resolution [Paras 1-22].

Judicial Precedents – Conflicting Bench Decisions – Analysis of various judgments from coordinate benches – Some benches hold confiscation should await criminal trial outcome based on Apex Court's ruling in Madhukar Rao – Other benches allow parallel proceedings, emphasizing independent nature of confiscation under Excise Act – Need for consistent legal interpretation recognized [Paras 9-16].

Reference to Larger Bench – Issues for Adjudication – Key questions formulated for Larger Bench consideration – Jurisdiction and timing of confiscation orders under Excise Act – Applicability of Supreme Court's Madhukar Rao decision – Parallel proceedings of confiscation and criminal trial – Binding nature of conflicting coordinate bench decisions [Paras 15-17].

Decision:

Interim Relief Granted – Collector, Narsinghpur, directed to release vehicle on supurdginama pending final adjudication – Larger Bench to resolve conflicting legal positions – Petitioner to furnish security equivalent to vehicle value for release [Paras 9-17].