Bail Cancellation – Distinction Between Witness Protection and Judicial Power – High Court Order Set Aside – The appellant, original complainant, sought cancellation of bail granted to the accused on grounds of threats to witnesses – The High Court dismissed the application, directing the complainant to instead pursue remedy under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 – The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in treating the Scheme as a substitute for judicial remedy under Section 439(2) CrPC – Emphasizing that courts cannot abdicate their jurisdiction to cancel bail in case of its violation, the Supreme Court set aside the order and directed reconsideration on merits – Appeal allowed – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication within four weeks [Paras 1-3, 16-18, 53, 62-67].

Bail Conditions – Violation of Terms – Liberty Not Absolute – Held: Bail is conditional liberty, and its breach, particularly when involving threats to witnesses, justifies cancellation – Courts must exercise their supervisory jurisdiction where conditions are violated – Reliance on administrative remedies like the Witness Protection Scheme cannot replace judicial oversight – Such abdication leads to miscarriage of justice [Paras 40-44, 56-59].

Witness Protection Scheme – Nature and Function – Complementary, Not Alternative – Held: The Scheme is designed to protect witnesses from intimidation but does not replace the court’s power to cancel bail – It functions as a curative measure addressing post-threat protection, not preventive judicial remedies under CrPC – Courts cannot relegate complainants to the Scheme when conditions of bail are violated [Paras 31-38, 45-48, 50-52].

Judicial Responsibility – Criticism of High Court Practice – Cyclostyled Orders Deprecated – Supreme Court observed a systemic error in Allahabad High Court where over 40 orders in bail cancellation cases simply diverted complainants to the Witness Protection Scheme without deciding on merits – Such mechanical disposal without applying legal principles was deprecated – Registry directed to circulate this order to all High Courts for corrective guidance [Paras 60-61, 67].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Matter Remanded – Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court order and directed it to rehear the bail cancellation application on merits – High Court to seek report from Investigating Officer, give opportunity to all parties, and pass a reasoned order within four weeks – No opinion expressed on merits by Supreme Court [Paras 62-67].

Criminal Writ – PIL - Constitutional Validity – Section 376DA IPC – Challenge to mandatory life imprisonment “for remainder of natural life” – Question left open – Petitioner assailed the provision as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 21 for excluding judicial discretion and mitigating circumstances – Court held that validity cannot be examined in vacuum in a PIL without concrete factual backdrop; issue left to be raised in appropriate case – Petition disposed of [Paras 5–7, 10–12].

Sentencing – Scope of punishment under Section 376DA IPC – Though mandatory life imprisonment stipulated, accused retains constitutional and statutory rights of remission under Articles 72 & 161 of the Constitution, Section 432 CrPC, and equivalent provisions under BNSS – Each State’s remission policy applies even to sentences under Sections 376DA & 376DB IPC [Paras 9.2–9.5].

Judicial Remedies – Conviction and sentence under Section 376DA IPC subject to appeal before High Court and Supreme Court – Additional remedies of constitutional and statutory remission safeguard against rigidity – Prescription of punishment reflects legislative policy considering egregious nature of offence [Paras 7–9].

Decision – Writ Petition disposed of; question of law on constitutional validity of Section 376DA IPC kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case – Impleadment application also disposed [Paras 10–12].

Quashing of Summoning Order – Delay in Complaint – Vague Allegations – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Supreme Court quashed proceedings initiated under a private complaint after finding four-year delay in lodging FIR for alleged 2010 incident – Allegations of rape and caste abuse were held to be vague, inconsistent, and unsupported by material evidence – Summoning of accused and parents held to be gross abuse of process [Paras 4–15, 22–24].

Frivolous and Vexatious Litigation – Judicial Caution Emphasized – Summons Must Not Be Issued Lightly – Citing Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, Court reiterated that false, motivated criminal proceedings deserve closer scrutiny – Summoning based on fabricated or exaggerated narrative can seriously harm reputation – Courts must carefully assess allegations, context, and delay [Paras 16–17].

Consensual Relationship vs. Rape – False Promise of Marriage – Legal Test Restated – Court reiterated that failed promise of marriage does not automatically amount to rape – Referred to Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, 2013 Cri LJ 2990 – Held: Distinction must be made between false promise made with intent to deceive and mere failure to marry due to changed circumstances [Paras 18–19].

Section 482 CrPC – Principles for Quashing Restated – Four-Step Test – Reiterated the Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor framework – Courts must consider if evidence is unimpeachable, rebuts complaint, and prosecution cannot reasonably refute it – If yes, continuation of proceedings is abuse of process [Para 20].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Criminal Case Quashed – Supreme Court allowed appeal, set aside Allahabad High Court’s order, and quashed proceedings in Criminal Case No. 655/2014 pending before Additional CJM, Allahabad [Paras 24–25].

Company Law – Oppression & Mismanagement – Jurisdiction – Gift/Share Transfer – Board Meetings – NCLAT interference set aside – Appeals allowed – NCLT order restored – Parties to bear own costs – [Paras 17, 19, 24-31, 42-46, 47-53, 55-56]

Background – Private company (Sargam Exim Pvt. Ltd., later Satori Global Ltd.) incorporated in 2006 – Appellant initially held 39,500/40,000 shares (>98%) after transfers and fresh issue – Marital discord with R-2 – Alleged resignation and gift of entire shareholding to mother-in-law (R-4) dated 17.12.2010 – Board meetings on 15.12.2010 and 17.12.2010 – Conversion to public company in June 2011 – Appellant lodged police complaints alleging coercion/blank papers – NCLT (04.09.2018) allowed petition under Ss. 397/398 (1956 Act), restored appellant as director and shareholder, set aside transfers and meetings – NCLAT (02.06.2023) reversed on maintainability/jurisdiction – Present civil appeals against NCLAT – [Paras 2-18, 19]

Maintainability – Petition under Ss. 397/398 (1956 Act) held maintainable – NCLT’s reasoning approved – Allegations of fraud/coercion/fabrication justified invoking oppression/mismanagement jurisdiction notwithstanding S.399 threshold objection – [Paras 24-25]

NCLT’s Jurisdiction – Wide, plenary powers under Ss. 397/398 read with jurisprudence (Radharamanan – Kamal Kumar Dutta – TCS v. Cyrus) – Tribunal can decide issues integral/incidental to oppression/mismanagement, including validity of gift deed/transfer when central to controversy – No specific statutory bar shown – NCLAT erred in holding otherwise – [Paras 26-31]

Oppression & Mismanagement – Tests reaffirmed (Meyer – Harmer – Shanti Prasad Jain – Needle Industries – Hind Overseas – Dale & Carrington – Sangramsinh Gaekwad – V.S. Krishnan) – Series of actions lacking probity and fair dealing, burdensome/harsh/wrong to appellant, prejudicing proprietary rights – Present facts satisfy the tests – [Paras 32-42, 54]

Gift Deed – Invalid under Articles – Article 16 does not permit gift transfer to “mother-in-law” – Actions contrary to AoA cannot defeat member’s rights (ref. VB Rangaraj) – Surrounding circumstances suspect: deed recites “love and affection” yet FIR by transferee (R-4) regarding jewellery on same date 17.12.2010 undermines narrative – [Paras 43-44]

Share Transfer Forms – Vitiated – Executed/used beyond validity – Overwriting/mismatch of dates to fit within purported extension – Transfers set aside – Court declines to rule on Registrar’s extension power since RoC not a party and decision unnecessary given invalidity otherwise – [Paras 45-46]

Board Meetings – Invalidly conducted – Mandatory notice to all directors (AoA cls. 30, 61; S.286, 1956 Act) not proved – Absence of minutes – Reliance on guard’s receipt pertains to EOGM (20.06.2011), not board meetings in issue – Inconsistent stands by respondents across fora – [Paras 48-50]

Quorum – AoA cl. 53 requires two validly appointed directors – On 15.12.2010 only appellant and R-3 were directors; in appellant’s absence quorum not met – Induction of R-5 as additional director on 15.12.2010 itself illegal, hence his presence on 17.12.2010 could not cure defect – Resolutions including acceptance of alleged resignation invalid – [Paras 51-53]

Result – Series of acts demonstrate oppression/mismanagement – NCLAT’s interference unwarranted – Supreme Court sets aside NCLAT and restores NCLT’s order – Civil appeals allowed – No order as to costs – [Paras 54-56]

Decision: Appeals allowed – NCLAT judgment dated 02.06.2023 set aside – NCLT judgment dated 04.09.2018 restored (including restoration of appellant as director and shareholder; invalidation of gift/transfer and impugned board resolutions) – Parties to bear own costs – [Paras 17, 55-56]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Vague Allegations and Delay – Proceedings Quashed – Private complaint filed in 2014 for alleged offences of 2010 including rape under Section 376 IPC and SC/ST Act – Magistrate summoned appellant after inquiry under Section 202 CrPC – High Court rejected quashing – Supreme Court held complaint vague, bereft of particulars, unexplained delay of 4 years, no corroborative evidence, complainant even avoided Court’s notice – Continuation of proceedings would be abuse of process – Summoning order and proceedings quashed [Paras 9–16, 21–24].

False Promise of Marriage – Distinction Between Rape and Consensual Relationship – Court reiterated law that consensual sex on account of love/passion differs from sex induced by false promise of marriage – Only if mala fide intent at inception is proved can it amount to rape – Reliance placed on Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, 2013 Cri LJ 2990 – In present case, allegations not credible, no evidence of initial mala fide intent [Paras 18–19].

Frivolous Complaints – Court’s Duty – Courts must closely scrutinize complaints that appear vexatious or filed with ulterior motives – Reference made to Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, and Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) Cr.A. 174 – Courts should assess overall circumstances, not merely complaint averments, to prevent harassment of accused [Paras 17, 20].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Criminal Case No.655/2014 pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad quashed – Pending applications disposed [Paras 22–24].

Criminal Law – Rape Allegation – Delay in Complaint – Summoning Order Quashed – Private complaint filed in 2014 alleging rape and caste atrocity based on incidents from 2010 – Cognizance taken under Section 376 IPC after magisterial inquiry – Appellant alleged consensual relationship and misuse of legal process – Held: Four-year unexplained delay, lack of material particulars, and vague, unsubstantiated allegations rendered the complaint inherently doubtful – Summoning order quashed as abuse of process [Paras 4–6, 10–15, 22–24]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process – Complaint found to be manifestly frivolous and vexatious – Allegations lacked specificity in date, time, and location – Complainant refused to accept Supreme Court notice – Held: High Court erred in not exercising inherent powers to quash proceedings – Test for quashing includes examining overall circumstances beyond bare allegations – Continuation of trial would cause injustice and tarnish reputation of accused [Paras 13–17, 20–23]

Consent and Rape – Distinction Between Consensual Sex and Rape – Promise to Marry – Court emphasized that false promise to marry must be shown to be made with mala fide intent from inception – In absence of such evidence, consensual sexual relations cannot ipso facto lead to charge of rape – Cited Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana on need for proof of deceitful intent at inception [Paras 18–19]

Legal Principles – Test for Quashing – Supreme Court reiterated four-step test from Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor – Whether material relied upon is unimpeachable, rebuts complaint, cannot be refuted by prosecution, and whether continuation would be abuse of process – All conditions met in present case [Para 20]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Summoning order dated 25.08.2015 quashed – Criminal Case No. 655/2014 before ACJM, Allahabad, terminated – All pending applications disposed of.

NGT – Appeal under Section 22 NGT Act – Environmental Compensation of ₹18 Crore Imposed on Sugar Mill – Orders Set Aside – Appellant challenged NGT orders dated 15.02.2022 and 16.09.2022 which imposed 2% of annual turnover as environmental compensation based on a joint committee report alleging effluent discharge violations – Held: NGT acted in violation of Sections 21–22 of the Water Act and principles of natural justice under Section 19 NGT Act by not impleading or hearing the appellant and by relying solely on a committee report – Orders declared illegal and quashed; UPPCB given liberty to act in accordance with law – Appeals Allowed [Paras 19, 30-34].

Evidence – Sampling of Trade Effluent – Sections 21–22, Water Act – Admissibility – The statutory protocol (notice to occupier/agent, splitting, sealing, dual-lab analysis, delivery of reports) is mandatory; results are inadmissible unless the procedure is followed – NGT’s reliance on committee findings absent compliance vitiates the basis for compensation [Paras 10.5–10.9, 30-33].

Role of Expert/Joint Committees – Adjudicatory Function vs. Fact-Finding – Committees appointed by tribunals assist in fact-finding but cannot substitute adjudication; their reports must be subject to party participation and judicial determination – NGT erred in basing liability solely on committee recommendations without hearing the affected party [Paras 27, 31-33].

Audi Alteram Partem – Opportunity to be Heard – Section 19 NGT Act – Even in suo motu or preventive environmental jurisdiction, affected parties must be heard before adverse directions – Failure to implead and hear the appellant rendered the proceedings non-est [Paras 19(i)-(ix), 31-33].

Relief and Liberty – Appeals Allowed – Consequential Directions – Setting aside of NGT orders does not preclude lawful regulatory action; UPPCB is at liberty to inspect and take remedial steps in accordance with the Water Act and principles of natural justice [Paras 33-34].

Property Law – Transfer of Immovable Property – Title Dispute – Appeal against concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court decreeing plaintiff’s suit for possession, mesne profits, declaration, and injunction – Plaintiff relied upon Agreement to Sell, GPA, Affidavit, Receipt, and Registered Will to claim title – Supreme Court held that such documents do not confer valid title under Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act – Sale of immovable property can only be by registered sale deed – Held: Plaintiff not entitled to relief as no valid conveyance executed – Appeal allowed – Suit dismissed [Paras 11-19, 27-28, 35]

General Power of Attorney – Scope and Legal Effect – GPA relied upon by Plaintiff only authorised management of property, not transfer of ownership – GPA, even if valid, does not transfer title – Held: GPA is an instrument of agency, not a conveyance – No title conferred on Plaintiff through GPA – Power of Attorney is revocable and cannot be used to create proprietary rights [Paras 18-22]

Will – Validity and Proof – Registered Will dated 16.05.1996 propounded by Plaintiff found unproven – Plaintiff failed to examine attesting witnesses as mandated under Section 68 of Evidence Act and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act – Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances, including complete exclusion of three other children without justification – Held: Will not proved in accordance with law – No valid title derived by Plaintiff [Paras 23-27]

Doctrine of Part Performance – Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act – Plaintiff sought protection under doctrine of part performance – Supreme Court held that actual possession is precondition to invoke Section 53A – Plaintiff not in possession at the time of filing suit – Relief under Section 53A not available [Paras 29-31]

Succession – Absence of Valid Transfer or Will – On demise of original owner (father), property devolves upon all Class-I legal heirs – Plaintiff’s claim based on unproven Will and invalid sale documents rejected – Held: Property to be treated as intestate succession among legal heirs [Para 32]

Rights of Bona Fide Purchaser – Defendant No.2 purchased 50% share from Defendant No.1 – Supreme Court protected such share to the extent of Defendant No.1’s right – Held: Rights of Defendant No.2 preserved to the extent of seller’s share – Parties free to assert claims through appropriate legal proceedings [Paras 33-34]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of High Court and Trial Court set aside – Plaintiff’s suit dismissed – No costs – Rights of Defendant No.2 protected to extent of seller’s share [Para 35]

Criminal Law - Rape of Minor – Conviction under Section 376(2) IPC & Sections 4, 6 POCSO – Trial Court’s Conviction Restored – High Court erred in acquitting accused on grounds of procedural irregularities and alleged inconsistencies – Held: Evidence of victim consistent and corroborated by medical records (pregnancy, abortion); procedural lapses (Section 223/defective charge) did not cause prejudice or failure of justice – High Court judgment unsustainable – Conviction and life sentence restored [Paras 13-23, 25-36, 38].

Age of Victim – Proof – Minor Status Established – Transfer Certificate, testimony of parents, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and medical report showed victim aged 12-15 years – Defence did not rebut or challenge minority – High Court erred in doubting age determination – Victim entitled to protection under POCSO [Paras 16-18].

Evidence – Testimony of Victim – Sole Basis for Conviction – Consistency of statements before Magistrate, police, and court; corroborated by medical reports of pregnancy and abortion – Absence of DNA test not fatal where identity and acts proved – Victim’s testimony reliable and trustworthy [Paras 14-15, 19-24].

Procedural Irregularity – Section 223 Cr.P.C. – Joint Trial of Two Accused – Even if joinder was technically improper, no prejudice or failure of justice shown – High Court wrongly treated misjoinder as fatal without proof of prejudice – Mere irregularity does not vitiate trial [Paras 29-35].

Defective Charge – Section 215 & 464 Cr.P.C. – Error in mentioning date of offence (02.07.2016 instead of March 2016) – Did not mislead accused or affect fair trial – Accused aware of allegations and time frame – Conviction not invalidated [Paras 25-27].

Standard of Proof – Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Misapplication – High Court erred in elevating minor inconsistencies to reasonable doubt – Principle must not be misused to acquit actual culprits – Doubts must be serious and rational; not trivial inconsistencies [Paras 22-23, 36].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s acquittal set aside – Trial Court’s judgment of conviction and concurrent life sentences restored – Respondents directed to surrender within two weeks, failing which Trial Court to secure custody [Paras 38-39].