Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 190, 319 - Taking Cognizance and Framing Charges: The Magistrate has the power to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) independently of the police report, based on the material on record. The High Court's quashing of charges based on the setting aside of the cognizance order was unjustified, especially since the accused suppressed the fact that charges had already been framed. The principle of suppression of truth being equivalent to expression of falsehood applies [Paras 17, 18].

Constitution of India - Article 142 - Complete Justice: The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to ensure complete justice, restoring the order framing charges and directing the trial to proceed, recognizing the right of the victim to justice [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The orders of the High Court and the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, are set aside. The trial before the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur, is to proceed in accordance with law [Para 19].

Criminal Law - Sentence - Sentencing Principles: Sentencing for any offence has a social goal. The nature and manner of the offence, its impact on society, and its repercussions on the victim must be considered. The goal of just punishment is deterrence, proportionality, and addressing the collective societal impact of the crime. In cases of heinous crimes such as rape, especially of minors, the sentence must reflect societal abhorrence and serve as a deterrent. [Paras 11, 22, 23].

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(2)(f) - Rape of Minor Girl - Life Sentence: The unimpeachable evidence of the victim, testimony of treating physicians, and medical evidence confirm that the accused raped the minor in a cruel and brutal manner. The sentence of life imprisonment is upheld, considering the crime's heinous nature and its devastating impact on the victim and society. The appeal is dismissed, affirming the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life. [Paras 9, 16, 22, 23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Conviction and life sentence upheld. The appellant's actions warrant severe punishment to reflect the gravity of the crime and its impact on the victim and society. The mitigating factors presented do not justify reducing the sentence. [Paras 23].

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 3 - NEET Notification: The notification published on 27th December 2010 by the Medical Council of India, introducing the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to Post-Graduate Medical Courses, was challenged on the grounds of competence and control over entrance examinations and admissions. The court allowed the respective entrance examinations to be conducted, but the results were withheld until further orders. [Paras 1, 2, 3].

Lifting of Bar on Results Declaration: Due to the delay in completing the hearing and the prospect of students losing a year, the court considered it just and equitable to lift the bar on the declaration of results for the current year's entrance examinations. The results of the examinations already conducted were allowed to be declared to enable students to take advantage of them for the current year, safeguarding the interests of both the students and the hospitals. [Paras 5, 6].

Decision: Order modified to allow the declaration of results for the entrance examinations conducted for the current year, enabling students to benefit from their results despite the ongoing legal proceedings. [Para 6].

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Grant of Licence: Until the Central Government has passed an order either granting or refusing approval under Section 5(1) and Section 11(5) of the MM(D&R) Act, 1957, it would not be permissible for any person to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Any such petition, if filed, would be premature. The High Court committed a grave error of law in observing that 'special reasons' did not exist under Section 11(5) and that there was no comparison of merits in the record. The State Government had tabulated and evaluated the inter se merits and concluded that POSCO was more meritorious [Paras 24, 25].

Preferential Right and Recommendation: The High Court should have left the matter to the Central Government to pass an appropriate order instead of entertaining a premature writ petition. The State Government by its recommendation, having forwarded the tabulated chart showing the inter se merit of each applicant, it was not for the High Court to sit in appeal to decide who among all is more meritorious and entitled for preferential right [Paras 24, 35].

Decision: Appeals allowed. The impugned judgment dated July 14, 2010, passed by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Central Government to consider the question of approval under Section 5(1) of the MM(D&R) Act, 1957, taking into consideration the recommendations made by the State Government. It is expected that the decision will be taken on an early date and communicated to the State Government [Para 36].

Election Law - Booth Capturing and Improper Reception of Votes: The court found no evidence to justify allegations of impersonation or double voting. The appeal demonstrated that the first respondent's claims of booth capturing and voter impersonation lacked material support. The High Court's decision to void the appellant's election and declare the respondent elected was thus flawed and untenable. The appeal against the judgment was allowed. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for credible evidence when alleging corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act [Paras 9, 10, 16, 24, 25].

Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 100(1)(d) - Grounds for Declaring Election Void: Even if improper reception of votes were to be considered, the respondent failed to prove that such reception materially affected the election result. The court reiterated that allegations must be substantiated with specific evidence, particularly when involving accusations of electoral misconduct [Paras 23, 25].

Judicial Discipline - Article 141 of the Constitution: The High Court judge's disregard for the Supreme Court's directions and judgments amounted to judicial indiscipline. The Supreme Court stressed the importance of adhering to established legal principles and respecting higher court rulings to maintain judicial propriety and the integrity of the legal system [Paras 26, 27].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated November 12, 2012, were set aside. The election petition filed by the respondent was dismissed. The appellant's election was upheld, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs [Para 28].

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Rape: Rape is a heinous crime violating a woman's dignity and fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The law prescribes a minimum sentence of seven years for rape under Section 376(1) IPC, reducible only with adequate and special reasons stated in the judgment. The High Court’s reduction of the sentences of the respondents to the time already served without providing sufficient reasons was legally unsustainable [Paras 6, 7, 9, 10].

Judicial Approach to Sentencing - Rape Cases: Courts must impose sentences that reflect the severity of the crime, considering societal abhorrence and the need for deterrence. The reduction of sentences below the statutory minimum must be justified with clear and special reasons, especially in crimes involving sexual violence [Paras 8, 9].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed. The High Court's judgment reducing the sentences is set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court for expeditious disposal of the appeals, providing an opportunity for all parties to be heard. Respondents to remain on bail until the appeals are resolved [Paras 11, 12].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11(6), 16 - Validity of Arbitration Agreement: The learned designated Judge erred in examining the merits of the case and the existence of an arbitration agreement in detail, holding that the arbitration clause in a void main agreement was also invalid. This detailed examination exceeded the scope of the Judge's jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act, which primarily involves determining the existence of an arbitration agreement and whether a live claim exists. An arbitration agreement can stand independent of the main agreement and does not become invalid even if the main agreement is declared void [Paras 13, 15, 16].

Competence of Arbitrator - Section 16 of the Act: The arbitrator is competent to rule on their own jurisdiction, including objections regarding the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. The provision presumes the validity of the arbitration clause, treating it as an independent agreement [Paras 14, 16].

Decision: Appeals disposed of. The impugned judgment of the designated Judge is set aside, and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration in light of the observations and established legal principles. Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 17, 18].

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304B, 498A - Dowry Death and Cruelty: The court emphasized that the conviction under Section 304B IPC requires proving that the death occurred under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage and was preceded by cruelty or harassment related to dowry demands. In this case, the evidence provided by the prosecution did not sufficiently prove the demand for dowry, leading to the conversion of the conviction from Section 304B to Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide). The court noted that mere ill-treatment without a direct link to dowry demands does not fulfill the criteria for dowry death [Paras 11-16, 19, 23].

Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 113A, 113B - Presumption of Abetment and Dowry Death: The court reiterated that the presumption of abetment of suicide (Section 113A) and dowry death (Section 113B) requires a clear link between the harassment and the dowry demands. The prosecution must establish this connection beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the testimonies were insufficient to establish a dowry demand, leading to the presumption not being applicable [Paras 13-15].

Criminal Procedure - Fair Trial and Conduct of Proceedings: The court expressed serious concern over the manner in which the trial was conducted, highlighting the frequent adjournments and the delayed cross-examinations, which were contrary to the mandate of Sections 231 and 309 CrPC. The court stressed the importance of adhering to procedural laws to ensure a fair and expeditious trial and criticized the trial court for allowing the defense to control the trial proceedings [Paras 24-34].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed. The conviction under Section 304B IPC is converted to Section 306 IPC. The appellant, having already served almost five years in custody, is sentenced to the period already undergone. The court also emphasized the need for trial courts to adhere to procedural mandates strictly to ensure fair trials [Paras 23, 34-35].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator: Where the arbitration clause has already been invoked by one of the parties under the ICC Rules, the provisions of Section 11(6) cannot be invoked again. If the other party is aggrieved by the appointment of an arbitrator, the remedy lies under Section 13 and subsequently under Section 34 of the Act. Once the arbitration agreement is invoked, it cannot be referred again to arbitration under Section 11 unless the order closing proceedings is set aside [Paras 31-33].

Proper Law of Contract and Arbitration Agreement: The proper law of the contract governs the substantive rights and obligations of the parties, while the proper law of the arbitration agreement governs the rights and obligations arising from the arbitration agreement. The curial law governs the arbitration proceedings. In this case, the Indian law was chosen as the governing law of the contract, and the arbitration was to be conducted as per ICC or UNCITRAL rules [Paras 13-16, 25-26].

Competence of Arbitrator - Section 16 of the Act: The principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz allows the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections regarding the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. Thus, the constitution of the tribunal under ICC rules must be addressed within that framework, not through Section 11(6) [Paras 20-23].

Decision: Arbitration petition dismissed. The petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not maintainable as the arbitration clause had already been invoked under ICC rules. The appellant may seek appropriate relief under other provisions of the Act. Each party to bear its own costs [Paras 34-36].