Criminal Procedure – Registration of FIR – Article 226 & Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Writ petitions by complainants against CBI officers alleging intimidation and illegal seizures – High Court directed registration of FIRs – Supreme Court upheld orders, holding that once complaints disclose cognizable offences, FIR registration is mandatory – Preliminary inquiry report of CBI not conclusive – Alternative remedies not a bar to writ jurisdiction [Paras 14, 22-24, 27-32, 34-36, 40].

Delay – Appeals filed after 12 years – Explained by pendency of Letters Patent Appeals dismissed on maintainability – Supreme Court condoned delay noting appellants were vigilant, pursuing remedies in good faith – No deliberate laches [Paras 11-13].

Public Servants – Protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and Section 140 Delhi Police Act – Not applicable – Allegations of illegal seizure, coercion, and abuse of authority fall outside scope of official duty – Public servants not immune where actions are prima facie mala fide and criminal in nature [Paras 18, 26].

Scope of Judicial Review – High Court’s discretion – Constitutional Courts empowered to order FIR registration if material discloses cognizable offence – Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136, reiterating that justice requires accountability even for investigators – “Those who investigate must also be investigated” [Paras 29-30, 34-38].

Investigation – To be conducted by Delhi Police (not Special Cell) by an officer not below ACP rank – Preliminary inquiry report may be looked into but not treated as conclusive – Appellants directed to cooperate – No coercive steps unless custodial interrogation required – FIR and investigation to be completed within 3 months [Paras 39-41].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed with modification – High Court’s orders upheld regarding FIR registration and investigation, but investigation shifted to Delhi Police ACP – Appeal otherwise dismissed [Paras 38-42].

Criminal Law – Cheating – Section 420 IPC – Quashment of Proceedings – Educational institution accused of using a forged Fire NOC to secure recognition – National Building Code and writ directions established no Fire NOC was required for buildings below 15 metres – Held: Essential ingredient of dishonest or fraudulent inducement absent since recognition/renewal was not contingent on Fire NOC – Proceedings under Section 420 IPC quashed [Paras 5-11, 12-13, 16, 21-22].

Cheating – Ingredients – Deception vis-à-vis Inducement – Mere deception insufficient unless coupled with dishonest inducement causing wrongful gain or loss – Court reiterates that intention is the gist and the false representation must be material to the grant – As the alleged NOC was not a condition precedent, causative link between representation and administrative action missing – Outcome: No offence under Section 420 IPC made out – Reasoning draws from statutory definitions and precedents [Paras 12-16].

Forgery – Sections 465, 468, 471 IPC – Requirement of “making” a false document and mens rea – No material connecting the appellant to the creation of the alleged forged NOC – Original fabricated document not recovered – Without proof of making (Section 464 IPC) and requisite dishonest intent to cause wrongful loss/gain, offences under Sections 465/468/471 not attracted – Outcome: Forgery-based allegations unsustainable [Paras 18-20].

Administrative/Regulatory Compliance – National Building Code, 2016 – Fire NOC not necessary for educational buildings below 15 m – Appellant’s building 14.20 m – Prior writ order directed renewal of affiliation without insistence on Fire NOC – This regulatory framework undercuts the prosecution’s case on materiality and inducement – Outcome: Supports quashment [Paras 5-11, 16, 21].

Appellate Intervention – Scope at Quashing Stage – High Court erred by overlooking that uncontroverted allegations, read with the writ order and NBC norms, do not disclose essential ingredients of cheating/forgery – Supreme Court sets aside High Court order and quashes proceedings – Decision: Appeal allowed, CC No. 303/2020 quashed [Paras 21-22].

Property Law – Declaratory Relief – Section 34 Specific Relief Act – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff relied on sale deed (150 sq.m); trial and first appellate courts dismissed suit citing discrepancies in revenue records (109.70 sq.m) and manure/waste presence – High Court reversed, holding findings perverse – SC upheld High Court: mere dumping waste cannot establish possession; corrected revenue records support plaintiff’s title and possession – Appeal dismissed – [Paras 2–12, 14].

Declaratory Relief – Scope under Section 34 SRA – Even without explicit recovery claim, declaration maintainable where defendant fails to prove possession – Defendant’s oral partition claim unsupported by evidence – [Paras 6–12].

Revenue Records – Evidentiary Value – Corrections made before suit maintain sanctity unless disproved – Trial Court erred in doubting correction without evidence – [Paras 10–11].

Possession – Dumping Manure/Waste – Not Equivalent to Lawful Possession – Plaintiff’s title deed and evidence of vendor’s possession prevail over defendant’s assertions – [Paras 8–9, 12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment affirming plaintiff’s ownership and possession upheld – Pending applications disposed of – [Paras 14–15].

Consumer Law - Medical Negligence – Scope of Pleadings – Consumer Fora Jurisdiction – Complaint alleged negligence only in post-delivery treatment – NCDRC held negligence in antenatal care despite no such pleading – Held: Fora cannot build a new case for complainant; decision must rest within pleadings [Paras 26-30].

Medical Negligence – Expert Opinion – Reports of five independent Medical Boards – All concluded no gross negligence in treatment of deceased mother and newborn – Findings entitled to weight; Courts and Fora not to substitute themselves as medical experts [Paras 17-22, 23-24].

Medical Negligence – Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur – Not applicable merely because patient died – Death due to atonic postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), a known complication with high mortality, does not by itself prove negligence – Failure of treatment ≠ negligence unless supported by cogent evidence [Paras 22-23].

Consumer Protection – Jurisdiction – Fora must adjudicate on pleaded case – NCDRC erred in introducing new ground of liability based on antenatal care, contrary to complainant’s pleadings – Such approach beyond its power and unsustainable [Paras 26-30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of SCDRC (2007) and NCDRC (2012) set aside – Complaint dismissed – Respondent directed to refund ₹10,00,000 received in interim, in monthly instalments of ₹1,00,000, apportioned between insurer and doctors – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 30-31].

Criminal Appeal – Conviction for Trespass and Assault – IPC Ss. 447 & 323 – Acquittal – Appellants convicted by Trial Court and affirmed by High Court despite closure report finding land belonged to State – Complainant admitted prior enmity and gave only self-serving testimony corroborated by interested witnesses – Held: Prosecution evidence weak, no proof of ownership or possession by complainant, complaint a counterblast to proceedings under S.107 CrPC – Conviction unsustainable – Appeal allowed; appellants acquitted [Paras 6–10].

Probation of Offenders Act – Trial Court had granted probation under S.4 despite conviction – However, since conviction itself found unsustainable by Supreme Court, benefit of probation became redundant [Paras 2, 5, 10].

Appellate Scrutiny – High Court erred in mechanically affirming trial court findings without appreciating lack of independent corroboration and ignoring Investigating Officer’s closure report – Supreme Court intervened to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 7–8].

Decision – Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted; bail bonds discharged [Para 10].

Bail in UAPA Case – Continued Incarceration – Bail Granted – Accused facing charges under UAPA and IPC for alleged association with banned organization and money transactions – Appellant incarcerated for over 2 years and 7 months – Only 3 witnesses examined so far – Trial likely to be prolonged – Some co-accused already granted bail – Court finds overt act attributable to appellant not so grave to deny bail – Held: Bail granted with conditions imposed by Trial Court [Paras 3–8].

Trial Expeditiousness – Direction to Trial Court – Supreme Court directs Trial Court to conclude trial within one year considering prolonged incarceration and slow pace of trial [Para 10].

Consequences of Non-Cooperation – Conditions for Cancellation of Bail – Court grants liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation of bail if the appellant is involved in future illegal activity or does not cooperate in trial – Preventive safeguards added to balance liberty and security [Para 9].

Decision – Impugned order denying bail set aside – Appeal allowed – Bail granted to appellant subject to trial court’s terms and conditions [Paras 8, 11].

Expunction of Adverse Remarks – Counsel’s duty of candour – Article 136 – Remarks Expunged – High Court, while deciding W.P. No. 6228 of 2022, recorded displeasure at the conduct of counsel (appellant) for not disclosing that the constitutional validity of amended Rule 6 (upheld in W.P. No. 18699/2020) had not been overturned – Appellant tendered unconditional apology and asserted he was not counsel in the Arushi Mahant matter; omission, if any, was bona fide – Held: In the facts, adverse observations in para 7 of the High Court’s order were avoidable and are expunged as against the appellant [Paras 4–5, 7, 9–10].

Procedural Consequence – Order on modification application – Article 136 – High Court order quashed – Since the adverse remarks stand expunged, the Supreme Court also set aside the High Court’s order dated 05/01/2024 dismissing IA No. 17812/2023 (seeking modification to delete the remarks) – Appeals disposed of accordingly [Paras 11–12].

Non-appearance of Respondents – Proceeding ex parte – Despite service, no one appeared for the State/Respondents; Court proceeded on record and submissions of appellant – Did not affect the merits of expunction granted in peculiar facts [Para 8].

Professional Impropriety – Standard for judicial censure – Appellate caution – While counsel owe a duty of full disclosure when citing precedent, courts should exercise restraint in recording personal strictures unless clearly warranted – In this case, possibility of bona fide oversight justified expunction [Paras 4, 9–10].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC – Issue of Sanction Deferred – High Court rightly held trial can proceed despite absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC for IPC offences – Supreme Court upheld this view – Held: Question of sanction under Section 197 CrPC can be examined by the Trial Court depending on evidence led during trial [Paras 5–7].

Framing of Charges – PC Act vs IPC – Challenge Limited to IPC Offences – Petitioner accepted framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act but contested IPC charges for want of sanction – Court permitted challenge before Trial Court and refused to interfere at SLP stage [Paras 3, 5, 7].

Trial Court Jurisdiction – Application for Exemption – Liberty Reserved – Supreme Court granted liberty to petitioner to approach Trial Court under Sections 205 and 317 CrPC (now Sections 228 and 355 BNSS) for exemption from personal appearance [Para 9].

Final Decision – Special Leave Petitions Disposed – High Court Order Not Interfered With – Liberty reserved to raise sanction and exemption issues before Trial Court – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 8–11].

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation – Income Assessment – Appeal Allowed – Deceased with diploma in pharmacy engaged in distributorship and cooperative bank activities – Tribunal fixed monthly income at Rs.6,000/-, High Court reduced to Rs.5,500/- without reasons – Held: Unjustified – Considering overall circumstances, monthly income reasonably fixed at Rs.12,000/- – Compensation recalculated at Rs.20,80,000/- – [Paras 2–5, 6–7].

Assessment of Income – Incremental Approach – Following Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. (2011) 13 SCC 236, daily wagers earned Rs.4,500/- in 2004; by 2010 could earn Rs.7,500/- – Deceased with higher qualifications/business reasonably taken at Rs.12,000/- p.m. – [Paras 5–6].

Consortium – Wider Entitlement – As per Somwati, not just spouse but children and parents also entitled to consortium – Rs.40,000/- each awarded – [Para 6].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs.20,80,000/- with 6% interest – Deduction of amounts already paid – To be disbursed as per Tribunal’s apportionment within 3 months – [Paras 7–8].