Criminal Law – Common Object and Unlawful Assembly – Respondents accused of attacking and killing Prahlad – Trial Court convicted them under Sections 302/149 and 148 IPC – High Court converted conviction to Section 323 IPC and reduced sentences – Supreme Court reinstated Trial Court’s conviction – Emphasized proper consideration of common object and collective liability under Section 149 IPC [Paras 1-22].

Evidence – Injuries and Self-Defence – High Court’s findings on injuries to accused and provocation considered incorrect – Supreme Court upheld Trial Court’s assessment of injuries and rejected self-defence claims – Highlighted standards for evaluating minor versus serious injuries in context of self-defence [Paras 15-21].

Judicial Review – Reversal of High Court Decision – Criticized High Court for soft-pedaling investigation and misjudging aggressors – Supreme Court stressed importance of proper evidence evaluation and adherence to legal standards in reversing High Court’s lenient judgment [Paras 14-19].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Trial Court’s conviction and sentences reinstated – Respondents directed to surrender within four weeks [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Registration of FIR – Appellant alleged rape during police custody – Police did not register FIR based on her complaint – High Court directed appellant to approach Magistrate under CrPC provisions – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s direction, citing proper legal procedures and absence of immediate complaint to authorities [Paras 6-12].

Investigation by CBI – Request for CBI probe into rape allegations – Supreme Court affirmed High Court’s decision against CBI investigation – Referenced limited and exceptional circumstances warranting CBI involvement – Emphasized procedural route through Magistrate for grievance redressal [Para 11].

Evidence – Non-Disclosure of Alleged Offence – Appellant did not disclose rape during multiple opportunities – Supreme Court noted absence of complaint to mother, medical officers, or Magistrate – Highlighted importance of timely reporting in evaluating claims [Paras 8-9, 12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment directing appellant to approach Magistrate affirmed – No presumption against appellant’s grievance, but procedural adherence emphasized [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Abduction and Rape – Appellant convicted under Sections 366, 376(g), and 120B IPC for abducting and raping a minor girl – Trial court and High Court upheld the conviction – Supreme Court examined issues of voluntariness and consent, considering the minor status of the victim [Paras 1-24].

Juvenile Victim – Determination of Age – Applied Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 for determining age – Established prosecutrix was under 15 years at the time of the incident – Consent of a minor deemed inconsequential [Paras 20-21].

Evidence – Testimony of Prosecutrix – Corroborated by medical evidence and forensic reports – Presence of semen and blood stains supported allegations – Rejected defense's claim of consensual sex due to victim's minor status and the circumstances of the abduction and rape [Paras 15-17, 23-24].

Judicial Review – Evaluation of Witnesses – Supreme Court upheld lower courts' reliance on prosecutrix's consistent testimony and corroborating evidence – Dismissed appeal on the grounds of substantial material supporting the conviction [Para 24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences upheld – No merit found in the appellant's contentions regarding voluntariness and consent [Para 25].

Criminal Law – Rape and Cheating – Appellant convicted under Sections 376 and 417 IPC – Alleged initial sexual intercourse by force, subsequent repeated consensual intercourse under promise of marriage – Supreme Court upheld conviction, finding deceit in obtaining consent by false promise [Paras 1-14].

Consent under Deception – Evaluating Voluntariness – Court analyzed prosecutrix’s testimony, supporting evidence from witnesses, and village panchayat proceedings – Concluded initial intercourse was forcible, subsequent intercourse obtained by deceitful promise of marriage [Paras 12-14].

Delay in Complaint – No Adverse Inference – Court rejected appellant’s claim of delay being indicative of fabrication – Noted immediate disclosure after appellant’s refusal to marry, consistent steps by prosecutrix and family seeking resolution before involving police [Paras 16-17].

Judicial Review – Consistent Testimony and Corroboration – Supreme Court affirmed lower courts' findings based on prosecutrix’s consistent testimony, corroborated by medical evidence and witness statements – Rejected defenses of consensual intercourse and lack of promise to marry [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences upheld – Appellant ordered to serve remaining part of sentence [Para 18-19].

Municipal Law – Dissolution of Municipal Council – Appellant, Chairman of Municipal Council Haridwar, challenged dissolution by State Government – High Court initially required hearing before dissolution – State issued public notice, received objections, and conducted a hearing – Supreme Court upheld process as compliant with principles of natural justice [Paras 3-13].

Hearing Requirement – Opportunity Provided – Analyzed public notice inviting objections and suggestions – Confirmed personal hearing granted to affected councilors and public – Rejected appellant's claim of inadequate hearing [Paras 12-13].

Procedural Fairness – Constitution and Statutory Compliance – Emphasized adherence to procedural fairness and compliance with constitutional and statutory provisions in dissolution and reconstitution of municipal bodies – Refrained from deciding on expediency requirement under Section 8-AA(1) of the Act due to lack of prior challenge and ongoing electoral process [Paras 11-13].

Judicial Review – Res Judicata and Procedural Safeguards – Acknowledged binding nature of previous Division Bench decision on parties – Upheld High Court’s findings of compliance with hearing requirements before dissolution and appointment of Administrator [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Upheld High Court’s decision validating State’s actions in dissolving Municipal Council and forming Municipal Corporation – Left question of expediency open for future cases [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Appellant alleged criminal offenses based on an agreement to sell land – High Court quashed FIR under Section 482 CrPC, finding no supporting evidence for the allegations – Supreme Court upheld quashing, noting lack of material evidence and reports indicating false accusations [Paras 10-16].

False Accusations – Lack of Agreement Evidence – Appellant failed to provide details or produce the alleged agreement to sell – Investigative reports indicated FIR was lodged to pressurize respondents – Court affirmed adverse inference due to missing evidence [Paras 14-16].

Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Proper Invocation – High Court’s use of Section 482 CrPC justified in absence of any material supporting allegations – Upheld as necessary to prevent misuse of judicial process [Para 16].

Judicial Review – Evaluation of Evidence – Comprehensive review of investigative and judicial records found no merit in appellant’s claims – Confirmed conclusions of investigative authorities on false motives behind FIR [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s quashing of FIR affirmed – No material evidence found to support appellant’s allegations [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Cheating – Accused, officials of Canbank Mutual Fund (CMF), and a broker charged with conspiracy to claim wrongful brokerage – Special Court convicted accused based on false claims and unauthorized endorsement of brokerage – Supreme Court analyzed evidence and upheld convictions with modifications [Paras 1-59].

Evidence – Handwriting and Witness Credibility – Prosecution's reliance on witness to prove endorsement in accused’s handwriting found insufficient – Supreme Court emphasized necessity of corroborative evidence and familiarity requirements under Section 47 of Evidence Act – Acquitted accused based on unreliable witness testimony and lack of supporting material [Paras 10-43].

Breach of Trust and Misappropriation – Evidence established that accused broker falsely claimed brokerage without being authorized – Supreme Court upheld broker’s conviction for cheating and receiving stolen property – Converted charge from criminal breach of trust to cheating based on substantive evidence [Paras 44-59].

Judicial Review – Acquittal and Conviction – Discussed impact of co-accused’s acquittal on principal accused’s charges – Affirmed ability to convict under alternative charges based on proven facts and substantive charges framed – Cited relevant case law to support findings [Paras 54-59].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Accused B. Raghuvir Acharya acquitted of charges due to insufficient evidence – Accused Hiten P. Dalal’s conviction for cheating (Section 420 IPC) and receiving stolen property (Section 411 IPC) upheld – Conviction under Section 477A IPC set aside – Sentences modified accordingly [Paras 45-59].

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Appellant, Mrs. Aparna A. Shah, appealed against issuance of process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – High Court dismissed her petition under Section 482 CrPC – Supreme Court held that only the "drawer" of the cheque can be prosecuted under Section 138 – Appellant was not the drawer as she did not sign the cheque [Paras 1-24].Interpretation of Statutes – Joint Account and Vicarious Liability – Supreme Court emphasized that criminal liability under Section 138 extends only to the person who signed the cheque – Joint account holders are not automatically liable unless they have signed the cheque – Strict interpretation of penal statutes required [Paras 13, 22-23].Vicarious Liability – Section 141 of NI Act – Court clarified that vicarious liability under Section 141 applies to company officers – In the case of a joint account, each holder must sign the cheque to be liable – Appellant not liable as she did not sign the cheque [Paras 13, 22-23].Judicial Review – Quashing of Proceedings – Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant – Held that the trial court’s process issuance was unsustainable as the appellant did not sign the dishonored cheque [Paras 22-24].Decision: Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings in Case No. 1171/SS/2009 against Mrs. Aparna A. Shah quashed [Para 24].

Land Acquisition – Jurisdiction and Authority – Appellants challenged the acquisition of land by the State Government for the North Western Railway Zone – Contended that only the Central Government had the authority to acquire land for Railways, a Union subject – Supreme Court examined legislative competence and procedural compliance – Affirmed State Government’s role in land acquisition as consistent with constitutional provisions and previous delegated authority [Paras 1-26].Procedural Validity – Compliance with Statutory Requirements – Reviewed the sequence of notifications, public hearings, and compensation determinations – Found State Government acted within its powers and followed due process – Objections regarding delayed filings and invalid agreements to sell rejected for lack of legal standing [Paras 4-18].Constitutional Rights – Article 300A and Property Deprivation – Analyzed appellants’ claims of unlawful deprivation of property – Reaffirmed procedural adherence as compliance with Article 300A – Emphasized legal acquisition procedures and dismissed claims of constitutional violations [Paras 27-27].Decision: Appeals dismissed – State Government’s acquisition of land upheld as legally valid – Process found to be in compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements [Para 27].