Criminal Law - Quashment of proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Appellant sought quashment of criminal proceedings in ST No. 459 of 2018 pending before the Sessions Court based on a settlement with the primary victim Pradeep Singh Mehta - High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the complainant/informant had not entered into a settlement - Supreme Court found that Pradeep Singh Mehta was the actual victim who suffered loss - observed that the offence bore civil and commercial overtones and continuation of proceedings in light of the settlement would be an abuse of process of law - held that the High Court erred in refusing to quash - appeal allowed - [Paras 1-49].

Criminal Law - Distinction between victim and informant - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 2(wa) - Supreme Court clarified that victim and complainant/informant are distinct connotations - the victim is the one who suffers loss or injury and is the only person who can authorize a settlement for the purpose of quashment under Section 482 CrPC - informant status does not confer a right to block a settlement between the accused and the real victim - [Paras 31-35].

Criminal Law - Settlement in non-compoundable offences - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab - Court held that for offences with civil or commercial flavour arising out of partnership or financial transactions where the wrong is essentially against the victim - the High Court can quash proceedings if the parties have settled their disputes - as the victim had conceded to the legality of the partnership and mutation - continuation of trial would be an exercise in futility - [Paras 36-43].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside - Criminal proceedings in ST No. 459 of 2018 stand quashed against all accused - Criminal Revision No. 2747 of 2019 stands dismissed.

Criminal Law - Externment - Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990 - Section 5 and 8 - Violation of principles of natural justice - District Magistrate passed an ex parte order of externment upon reopening a closed case without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing - Appellant was in judicial custody at the time of the order - High Court dismissed writ petition relegating appellant to statutory appeal - Supreme Court held that the order was void ab initio for breach of statutory mandate of Section 8 and lack of jurisdiction to review a closure order - Held - Externment order and High Court judgment quashed - [Paras 1-36].

Writ Law - Maintainability - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Alternative remedy - High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction on the ground of availability of appeal under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam - Supreme Court held that where an order is ex facie vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice and want of jurisdiction the High Court should not relegate the party to alternative remedy - Held - High Court committed an abject failure to exercise jurisdiction - [Paras 16-27].

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction - Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990 - Section 5 - Administrative Review - District Magistrate recalled a closure order and passed an externment order - No statutory power exists for an administrative authority to review or recall its own order once proceedings are closed - Held - Authority exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law - [Paras 25-26].

Criminal Law - Externment - Chhattisgarh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam 1990 - Section 5(b) - Conditions precedent - Requirement of offences involving force or violence - Allegations of insulting a religious figure do not fall under Chapters XII, XVI or XVII of the IPC - Held - Invocation of Section 5(b) was wholly misconceived and the order is not sustainable on merits - [Paras 29-30].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Impugned judgment of the High Court and the externment order passed by the District Magistrate are quashed - Appellant is free to enter the districts from where his externment was ordered.

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of Plaint - Ad-valorem Court Fee - Plaintiff sought declaration of co-ownership and separate possession of inherited property challenging fraudulent transfer - Trial Court refused to reject plaint noting plaintiffs were non-executants of the transfer document and in joint possession - High Court set aside order directing payment of ad-valorem fee based on prayer for possession - Supreme Court found High Court erred in mechanical application of rules without assessing evidence on possession and nature of claim - Held - Question of payment of court fee deferred to be decided based on evidence led in trial - [Paras 1-6.3].

Civil Law - Court Fees Act 1870 - Section 7(iv)(c) - Article 17(iii) - Non-executant of deed - Plaintiffs as non-executants suing for declaration that transfer deed is void and for consequential relief of possession - Whether ad-valorem fee is required depends on whether plaintiffs are in possession - Held - Since joint possession is a disputed question of fact, the liability for ad-valorem versus fixed court fee must be established through evidence at trial - [Paras 5.1-6.2].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Order of the High Court set aside - Order of Trial Court refusing to reject the plaint upheld with the modification that the issue of court fee shall be determined based on evidence led during the trial.

Civil Law - Auction Sale - SARFAESI Act 2002 - Sections 13(2) and 13(4) - Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 - Rules 8 and 9 - Borrower challenged auction on grounds of shortfall in EMD and delay in payment of balance sale consideration - High Court and DRAT had initially interfered with the sale process - Supreme Court held that the EMD requirement is non-statutory and intended to filter non-serious bidders - Since the bidders deposited 25% of the sale price as per Rule 9(3) and no prejudice was caused to any party the auction remains valid - Held - The auction-purchasers' bid was valid and the borrower's contention regarding essential eligibility conditions is rejected - [Paras 1-22].

Civil Law - Refund of Surplus - SARFAESI Act 2002 - Section 13 - Retention of funds - Bank retained excess sale proceeds in a non-interest-bearing account despite a tender by the borrower - Bank failed to keep surplus in an interest-bearing account - Held - The borrower cannot be penalized for the bank's omission and is entitled to the refund of the balance sale consideration with interest at 7% per annum from the date the surplus was placed in the non-interest-bearing account until actual payment - [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Civil Appeal Nos. 9228-9231 of 2013 and Civil Appeal @ Special Leave Petition @ Diary No. 31322 of 2018 are allowed. Impugned judgment of the High Court and the order of the DRAT are quashed and set aside. Bank directed to refund Rs 1,33,94,054 along with 7% interest per annum from 23/03/2010.

Criminal Law - Bail - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 323, 109, 504, 506 and 34 - Accused persons involved in a pre-planned attack where the complainant was doused in petrol and set on fire after repeated threats - Trial Court and High Court granted bail to certain accused on grounds of parity and lack of overt acts despite the existence of prima facie evidence of common intention and premeditation - Supreme Court held that the orders were perverse and bereft of cogent reasoning - Found that the collective conduct of the accused in arriving together with inflammable material and executing the attack demonstrates a common intention - Cancelled bail of accused persons who were physically present and participated in the assault while affirming bail for the accused who was not present at the scene - Held - Impugned orders granting bail to accused No 3 and 4 are set aside - Accused directed to surrender - [Paras 25-40].

Criminal Law - Bail - Principles for grant or cancellation - Discretionary relief in serious offences - Courts must record prima facie reasons for granting bail in heinous crimes - Mechanical grant of bail without considering the gravity of offence and material on record amounts to non-application of mind - Appellate courts must intervene where bail orders are flimsy and ignore serious allegations and premeditated nature of the crime - Held - Bail order must reveal factors considered for relief - [Paras 32-37].

Evidence Law - Test Identification Parade - Identification of accused - Investigation revealed that unidentified accomplices mentioned in the FIR were later identified through Test Identification Parade and corroborated by CCTV and mobile-phone video recordings - Evidence establishes active participation in the commission of the offence - Held - Identification and forensic evidence provide sufficient grounds to reject bail for active participants - [Paras 7-30].

Decision: Appeals filed by the State against bail granted to accused No 3 and 4 allowed – Bail orders set aside – Accused 3 and 4 directed to surrender within three weeks – Appeal of accused No 2 and State's appeal against bail of accused No 5 dismissed – Trial Court directed to conclude trial within two years.

Criminal Law - Bail - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 342 201 and 120-B - Petitioner sought bail on grounds of parity with co-accused who were granted bail - Petitioner alleged to be the principal architect of the murder of the victim following a property dispute - High Court rejected the second bail application - Supreme Court observed that parity is not a mechanical formula and must be assessed based on specific roles - Court held that the petitioner had a distinct and specific role in the premeditated offence and that release at this stage risks prejudice to fair trial proceedings due to sensitive witness testimonies - Held - Plea for bail rejected - [Paras 1-11].

Criminal Law - Right to Speedy Trial - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Prolonged Incarceration - Petitioner contended three years of custody without significant progress - Prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence requiring untainted testimony of sensitive witnesses - Court held that mere incarceration period does not automatically entitle an accused to bail in grave offences - Court however directed the Sessions Court to record testimonies of eight sensitive witnesses within one year to balance the right to speedy trial with witness integrity - Held - Petition disposed of with specific timelines - [Paras 12-16].

Decision: Special Leave Petition disposed of – Prayer for bail rejected – Sessions Court directed to make sincere endeavour to record the evidence of eight specified sensitive witnesses within one year – Liberty granted to petitioner to approach the appropriate forum afresh upon completion of said witness examinations or expiry of the one-year period.

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 528 - Petitioner challenged dismissal of plea to quash FIRs alleging malicious intent and abuse of process after police reported mistake of fact - High Court dismissed petitions - Supreme Court held that since police had proposed a final closure report it remains for the concerned court below to proceed in accordance with law - No grounds for interference established - Held - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 3-6].

Criminal Law - Public Interest Litigation - Abuse of Process - Petitioner sought to maintain complaints filed by an associate regarding human trafficking despite withdrawal by original complainant - Supreme Court noted lack of bona fides and targeted approach of petitioner who was not a signatory to original complaints and filed complaints after six years of alleged incident - Held - No merit in petition - [Paras 7-13].

Criminal Law - Costs - Imposition of costs for abuse of process - Supreme Court initially imposed costs of Rs 25000 for filing petitions lacking bona fides but subsequently recalled the order to temper justice with mercy - Held - Costs waived - [Paras 13-16].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions disposed of and dismissed – No interference with High Court orders – Liberty granted for Trial Court to proceed with Final Report in accordance with law.

Civil Law - Testamentary Proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XIII Rule 3 - Appellant challenged the filing of a lengthy proof affidavit and production of documents in probate suit T.O.S. No. 12 of 2021 alleging irrelevance - Single Judge of High Court dismissed the application refusing to eschew documents except for those which were xerox copies without explanation - Division Bench upheld order observing that mere filing of affidavit is not proof and litigation lacked bona fides - Supreme Court dismissed appeal holding that evidentiary objections regarding admissibility should generally be decided at the final stage to prevent procedural delays as per Bipin Shantilal Panchal case - Held - No interference warranted in the discretion exercised by Courts below - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-15].

Evidence Law - Admissibility - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XIII Rule 3 - Procedure for marking documents - Objection regarding admissibility should be noted and documents marked tentatively subject to objections to be decided at final stage - Exception applies only to stamp duty deficiency - Held - Mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not amount to proof of its contents which must be established in accordance with law - [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment and order of the High Court affirmed – Testamentary proceedings to continue uninfluenced by present observations – Stay of proceedings vacated.

Tax Law - GST - Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 - Rule 96(10) - Omission of rule - Whether omission applies to pending proceedings - High Court held omission applicable to all pending proceedings - Supreme Court examined validity of rule in light of repeal and omission principles - Emphasized that omission of a rule without a saving clause obliterates it from the statute book - Held - Omission of Rule 96(10) applies to pending proceedings as no saving clause or sunset clause was provided by the legislature - Appeals dismissed - [Paras 1-11].

Statutory Interpretation - General Clauses Act 1897 - Section 6 - Applicability to Rules - Constitution Bench principle - Rule 10 or 10-A is neither a Central Act nor a regulation - Section 6 does not apply to the omission of a Rule - Held - Proceedings under an omitted rule can only continue if the statute provides a legal device or fiction to save them - Since no such provision exists for Rule 96(10) the proceedings must reach a quietus - [Paras 5-7].

Tax Law - GST Council Recommendations - Advisory nature - GST Council suggested prospective omission of Rule 96(10) - Court noted recommendations are advisory and not binding on rule-making authority - Held - Lack of a saving clause demonstrates clear legislative intent to end complications arising from Rule 96(10) once and for all - [Paras 4-7].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Omission of Rule 96(10) held applicable to pending proceedings – Registry directed to communicate order to all High Courts to ensure expeditious disposal of similar pending litigation.