Criminal Law - Murder – Common Object – Unlawful Assembly – Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Upheld – Accused persons armed with swords fatally assaulted the deceased following a land and water dispute – The trial court and High Court convicted the accused under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC – Held: The prosecution successfully established the presence and participation of the accused in an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the murder – Conviction upheld [Paras 5, 8, 13].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Omissions Not Material – Conviction Based on Trustworthy Evidence – Three eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-5) provided a consistent and detailed account of the murder – Minor omissions in statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC were not sufficient to discredit their testimonies – Held: Their evidence was of sterling quality and sufficient to convict the accused – The failure to examine other potential eyewitnesses did not weaken the prosecution's case [Paras 9-11, 14].

Plea of Alibi – Accused No. 9 Fails to Prove Absence at Scene of Crime – Conviction Sustained – Accused No. 9 (Tanaji) claimed he was on duty with the crime branch at the time of the incident – However, the prosecution proved his presence at the crime scene – No documentary evidence was produced by the accused to support his alibi – Held: The plea of alibi was not substantiated and was rightly rejected by the lower courts [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Confirmed – The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals – The conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court were upheld – Accused No. 9 directed to surrender within one month to serve the remaining sentence – No relief granted to the other accused, as they had already completed their sentence [Para 15].

Temple Management Dispute – Jurisdiction of Civil Court Prevails Over Executive Orders – The dispute over the control of Shri Khereshwar Mahadev Va Dauji Maharaj Temple was pending before the civil court, with an injunction maintaining the status quo – The Allahabad High Court directed the District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate to implement an earlier executive order transferring the temple to the Gram Sabha – Held: When civil litigation is pending, the executive authorities cannot decide ownership or possession disputes; the High Court erred in overriding the civil court’s jurisdiction [Paras 6-9, 14].

Gram Sabha’s Authority Over Public Property – Procedural Non-Compliance – The respondents relied on Sections 34 and 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, to claim Gram Sabha’s management rights over the temple – The Supreme Court held that for the Gram Sabha to initiate legal proceedings, a formal resolution was required under paragraph 128 of the Gram Sabha Manual – Held: Since no such resolution was passed, the writ petition was not maintainable at the instance of the Gram Pradhan in her personal capacity [Paras 10, 15].

Failure to Consider Prior Judicial Orders – High Court’s Erroneous Approach – The High Court disregarded prior orders of the Additional District Judge, which had recognized the civil court’s jurisdi’tion and directed a status quo – The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to reference or consider these judicial findings – Held: High Courts must ensure that orders do not contradict existing judicial decisions, particularly in pending litigation [Paras 12-14].

Public Interest Litigation in Private Disputes – Limits on Writ Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court observed that the High Court treated the writ petition as a public interest litigation despite its private nature – Held: A dispute over temple management between two rival committees does not constitute a public interest matter warranting extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 [Paras 15-16].

Directions for Expeditious Disposal of Civil Suit – Status Quo to Continue – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aligarh, to decide the pending civil suit within six months – Till then, the interim order maintaining the status quo would continue [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The High Court’s order was set aside, and the civil court was directed to resolve the dispute within six months.

Civil Law - Contempt of Court – Violation of Undertaking – Appellants Held Guilty of Disobedience – The appellants’ counsel gave an undertaking before the Trial Court on 11th July 2007 and 13th August 2007 that they would not alienate the suit property – The undertaking was later made into a court order on 17th November 2007 and extended periodically – Despite this, the appellants executed multiple sale deeds between 2007 and 2011 – Held: The High Court rightly held the appellants guilty of contempt for willful disobedience of the undertaking given to the court [Paras 3, 6, 12].

Plea of Lack of Authorization – Rejected – Advocates’ Authority in Court Proceedings – The appellants argued that their counsel gave the undertaking without express authorization – The Court rejected this claim, holding that an advocate-client relationship is fiduciary in nature, and any statement made before the court is binding unless proven otherwise – Held: The appellants’ inaction for four years after the undertaking was given showed that they accepted it – No evidence was presented to show that the counsel acted beyond his authority [Paras 9-11].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Justified Exercise – Orders of the Court Must Be Obeyed – The Court reaffirmed that contempt jurisdiction exists to uphold the dignity of the judiciary and enforce compliance with court orders – Even if an injunction order is later set aside, disobedience during its validity remains punishable – Held: The High Court correctly exercised contempt jurisdiction in punishing the appellants for disregarding their undertaking and violating the court’s authority [Paras 7, 13].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Imprisonment Deleted, But Fine Enhanced – The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order – The three-month civil imprisonment imposed on appellant No.1 was deleted due to advanced age (68 years) – However, the fine was increased from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.13 lakhs with 6% interest from 2nd August 2013 – The attachment of the suit property remained undisturbed [Paras 14-15].

Land Acquisition – Belting Method – Improper Application – Belting principle applied by the Reference Court and affirmed by the High Court – Held: Inappropriate in the present case as no evidence proved distinct belts or potential for differential use within the acquired land – The entire land was homogeneous and similar in nature – Belting method discarded [Paras 22-24].

Comparable Sale Instances – Reliance on Pre-Acquisition Sale Deeds – High Court enhanced compensation based on three sale instances prior to the date of notification – Held: The sale deeds were genuine and could be relied upon as the transactions were between willing parties and proximate in time – Adjustment towards development potential considered appropriate [Paras 26-31].

Deduction for Development Charges – Applicability – DDA argued for 50% deduction citing undeveloped nature of land – Held: Deduction reduced to 33.33% as the land was located near developed colonies and urban infrastructure – Supreme Court considered ground realities and likelihood of moderate development expenses [Paras 32-35].

Interest under Section 28 – Delay in Payment – High Court granted interest for delayed payment of enhanced compensation – Held: Properly granted as delay was attributable to the appellant – No interference warranted [Paras 36-38].

Final Compensation – Moderate Enhancement – Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by reducing deduction from 50% to 33.33%, resulting in modified compensation – The rest of the judgment, including reliance on comparable sale deeds and grant of interest, upheld [Paras 39-40].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Compensation Recalculated – Supreme Court modified the compensation by reducing the deduction percentage and upheld the grant of interest on enhanced compensation [Para 40].

Criminal Law - Preventive Detention – PITNDPS Act - Detenus Already in Judicial Custody – No Material to Show Likelihood of Bail – Detention Orders Quashed – The detenus were already in judicial custody at the time of passing the detention orders – The detaining authority failed to record any cogent material suggesting that there was a likelihood of them being released on bail – Held: Preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for criminal prosecution unless there is a real possibility of release on bail—Detention orders held illegal and quashed [Paras 8-9, 12-13].

Preventive Detention – Violation of Article 22(5) – Failure to Communicate Grounds in a Language Understood by Detenus – Orders Invalid – The detenus were served detention orders in English, a language they did not understand – Though the authorities claimed oral explanation in Nagamese, this did not satisfy the constitutional requirement of effective communication – Held: As per the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench ruling in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, grounds of detention must be provided in a language the detenus can read and understand—Detention orders set aside [Paras 11, 14].

Non-Application of Mind – Detaining Authority Merely Endorsed Police Proposals – Orders Invalid – The detaining authority did not independently record grounds of detention but merely relied on police proposals – This violated the statutory requirement under Section 6 of the PITNDPS Act, which mandates that separate and specific grounds must be framed – Held: The detention orders were passed mechanically without due application of mind and are therefore invalid [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Detention Orders Quashed – Detenus Directed to be Released – The Supreme Court set aside the Gauhati High Court’s judgment upholding the detention orders – The detention orders dated 30.05.2024, and subsequent extensions, were quashed – Detenus directed to be released immediately unless required in any other case [Paras 17].

Criminal Law - Murder – Dying Declaration – Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Sustained – The deceased suffered a fatal gunshot wound and, before succumbing, named the accused as his assailants before PW-1 (his wife) and PW-2 (his brother) – Both witnesses provided consistent testimonies regarding the deceased’s statement – Held: The dying declaration was credible and reliable, forming the basis for conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 6-9, 14].

Dying Declaration – No Requirement for Medical Certification – Admissibility Upheld – The defense argued that no dying declaration was recorded by the doctor – The Court held that a formal medical certification is not mandatory for the admissibility of a dying declaration – The spontaneous and voluntary nature of the statement to close family members was sufficient to establish its reliability – Held: Absence of medical certification does not affect the validity of a dying declaration [Paras 7, 10].

Ballistic Report – Failure to Match Bullet with Firearm – Not Fatal to Prosecution’s Case – The forensic report was inconclusive regarding whether the bullet extracted from the deceased's body was fired from the recovered pistol – However, since the dying declaration was credible, this forensic gap did not undermine the case – Held: Conviction can be based on a dying declaration alone if found reliable, even in the absence of corroborating forensic evidence [Paras 13, 15].

Common Intention – Presence of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 at Crime Scene – Section 34 IPC Attracted – The deceased identified three accused, stating they were present when accused No.1 shot him – The Court held that their presence and conduct supported the prosecution’s case of common intention under Section 34 IPC – Held: The conviction of all accused was justified as they shared a common intention in committing the crime [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Confirmed – The Supreme Court found no error in the Trial Court and High Court’s findings – The appeals were dismissed – Accused directed to surrender within one month to serve the remainder of their sentence – Directed that when eligible, their remission applications be considered expeditiously [Paras 18].

Criminal Law - Criminal Proceedings – Allegations of Theft and Conspiracy – Suppression of Material Facts – Complaint Quashed - The second and third respondents (husband and mother-in-law) filed a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC, alleging theft and conspiracy against the appellants (wife and her family) – Summons were issued for offences under Sections 379 and 120-B IPC – However, the respondents had earlier filed a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but failed to disclose this fact in the complaint – Held: The suppression of material facts and the contradictory actions of the complainants indicate an abuse of process – Decision: Complaint quashed [Paras 3-7].

Powers of High Court – Exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Failure to Prevent Abuse of Process - The High Court of Himachal Pradesh refused to quash the criminal proceedings – The Supreme Court held that the case was fit for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process – Decision: The High Court erred in not quashing the complaint, and its order dated 02/01/2024 was set aside [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Prior Matrimonial Disputes Considered – Filing of Complaint After Marital Discord - The complaint was filed after the wife had initiated legal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act – The alleged theft occurred in August 2020, but the complaint was filed only in October 2021 – Held: The delayed filing of the complaint, along with the contradictory stance of the husband in filing for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, indicates mala fide intent – Decision: Proceedings quashed [Paras 4-6].

Criminal Complaint – Allegation of Theft – Contradiction by Subsequent Conduct – Complaint Quashed – The complainants alleged that the first appellant (wife) stole ornaments and valuables from her matrimonial home; however, the third respondent (husband) had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights after the alleged theft — Held: If the husband genuinely believed that the wife committed theft, he would not have sought her return to cohabitation; suppression of this fact in the complaint vitiated the proceedings [Paras 5-6].

Abuse of Process – Suppression of Material Facts – Complaint Set Aside – The Court found that the complainants deliberately suppressed the pending matrimonial proceedings, which were crucial to assessing the credibility of the allegations — Held: Complaint was an abuse of the process of law and deserved to be quashed [Paras 5-7].

Quashing of Proceedings – Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Power Reaffirmed – The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in declining to exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC despite the evident abuse of legal process — Held: The summoning order and the complaint were quashed to prevent injustice [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Summoning Order and Complaint Quashed – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court and Magistrate’s orders, and clarified that these findings would not affect pending matrimonial proceedings between the parties [Paras 8-10].

Service Law – Pension Entitlement – Interpretation of Retirement Benefit Schemes – University Employees’ Rights – The appellant was appointed as a Junior Scientist cum Assistant Professor in 1987 and, as per the Rajendra Agricultural University Statutes, 1976, was required to opt for the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme if he did not wish to be covered under the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme – The appellant never opted for CPF – Held: Under Chapter 16 of the University Statutes, non-exercise of the CPF option automatically entitled the appellant to the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme – High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s claim was erroneous [Paras 9-12].

Office Order Implementation – Automatic Inclusion in Pension Scheme Upon Non-Exercise of CPF Option – The University’s Office Order dated 21.02.2008 clearly stipulated that employees who did not opt for CPF within one month would automatically be included in the pension scheme – The appellant did not exercise the option, yet the University failed to include him in the pension scheme – Held: The University's failure to include the appellant in the pension scheme violated its own statutory provisions [Paras 6-7].

Precedents from the High Court – Similarly Placed Employees Granted Pension – The Patna High Court had previously ruled in multiple cases, including Arjun Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC 2041/2012), that non-exercise of the CPF option must result in automatic entitlement to pension – The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s refusal to grant the appellant similar relief was arbitrary and contrary to established precedent [Paras 11-12].

Appeal Allowed – Direction for Pension Grant Within Four Months – The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be granted retiral benefits under the General Provident Fund-cum-pension-cum-gratuity scheme, with necessary adjustments for any CPF benefits received – Computation and disbursement were ordered within four months [Para 13].