Civil Procedure – Trademark and Copyright Suits – Expeditious Disposal – Petition against Delhi High Court order restraining the appellants from using the words ‘HARA QILLA’ and device ‘QILLA’ as trademark on rice packaging – Supreme Court observed that in intellectual property matters, litigation often remains confined to interlocutory injunctions for years while the main suit remains undecided – Held: All courts should strictly comply with proviso to Order XVII Rule 1(2) CPC mandating day-to-day hearing once trial begins – In trademark, copyright and patent matters, trial courts must dispose of suits preferably within four months from filing – High Courts requested to ensure compliance [Paras 3–5].

Practice and Procedure – Order XVII Rule 1(2) CPC – Court reiterated that once trial has commenced, adjournments should not be granted except for exceptional reasons recorded in writing – Adherence to clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso is mandatory – Delay in trial defeats the object of justice in commercial and IP matters [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Special Leave Petition disposed of – No interference with High Court’s interim injunction – Trial Court directed to decide the main suit within three months from the date of production of this order [Paras 6–7].

Family Law – Mutual Consent Divorce – Withdrawal of Consent – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Petition under Section 13B filed by both parties – Wife withdrew consent at second stage – Trial Court and High Court dismissed petition relying on Sureshta Devi – Supreme Court held consent must subsist until decree – However, exercised power under Article 142 to grant divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown as parties were separated for 7 years and settlement was acted upon [Paras 2-4, 8-10, 17-22]

Constitutional Law – Article 142 – Complete Justice – Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to invoke irretrievable breakdown doctrine – Can grant mutual divorce even if consent withdrawn before decree – High Courts and subordinate courts cannot override statutory conditions under Section 13B – Divorce granted despite opposition as continuation of marriage was a legal fiction [Paras 17-22]

Statutory Interpretation – Section 13B(2) – Consent Must Continue – Under existing law, both parties must reaffirm consent at second motion for mutual divorce – Supreme Court distinguished between general application of Section 13B and its constitutional powers under Article 142 – Sureshta Devi still good law for all courts except Supreme Court in Article 142 jurisdiction [Paras 8, 16, 19]

Relief – Decree of Divorce Granted – Supreme Court set aside High Court judgment – Allowed appeal – Restored and accepted mutual divorce petition – Marriage dissolved from date of judgment – No order as to costs [Paras 21-23]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Divorce by mutual consent granted under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution – Marriage dissolved.

Criminal Law – Murder of Wife and Children – Circumstantial Evidence – Plea of Alibi – Conviction – Appellant convicted for murdering his wife and two minor children in their house due to extreme financial distress – Plea of alibi rejected as appellant was last seen leaving the scene at 5 a.m. by PW-4 and later admitted to hospital at 6.30 a.m. – Recovery of blood-stained articles from room shared with deceased – No explanation offered under Section 313 CrPC – Held: Circumstantial evidence conclusively establishes guilt – Conviction under Section 302 IPC on three counts affirmed [Paras 25–36].

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25 – Confession to Police – Statements made to police excluded – Court relied solely on admissible circumstantial and testimonial evidence – Statements of witnesses consistent and trustworthy – Minor discrepancies immaterial [Paras 23–29].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Rarest of Rare Doctrine – Mitigating Factors – Though offence involved murder of wife and two children, Court held that mitigating circumstances outweighed aggravating factors – Appellant unemployed for months, financially ruined, emotionally disturbed, attempted suicide, and acted under extreme mental and emotional distress – No prior criminal record – Good prospects of reformation – Held: Case does not fall within “rarest of rare” category – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment [Paras 39–46].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Sentencing Policy – Balancing of Circumstances – Court reaffirmed principles laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470 – Death penalty to be imposed only when life imprisonment is wholly inadequate – Where possibility of reformation exists, death sentence unwarranted [Paras 39–42].

Decision: Conviction under Section 302 IPC (three counts) affirmed – Death sentence set aside – Life imprisonment awarded – Appeal partly allowed [Para 46].

Criminal Procedure – Second Complaint – Dismissal of Earlier Complaint for Default – Whether Barred – Petitioner challenged maintainability of a second complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, after the first was dismissed for non-filing of process fee – Contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was incompetent to take cognizance again under Section 362 CrPC and that absence of sanction under Section 19 rendered the proceedings void – Held: Dismissal of a complaint not on merits but for default does not bar filing of a second complaint on the same facts – Section 362 CrPC prohibits review or recall of a final order but does not preclude institution of a fresh complaint – Law clarified in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, Jatinder Singh v. Ranjit Kaur and Maj. Gen. A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur – Second complaint permissible if the earlier one was not decided on merits [Paras 13–16].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 19 – Requirement – Petitioner contended that absence of sanction vitiated the proceedings – Held: No merit – Petitioner having retired from service prior to the filing of the complaint, sanction under Section 19 was not necessary – Complaint maintainable [Para 16].

Interpretation of Statutes – Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant – Contention that Prevention of Corruption Act overrides CrPC in procedural matters – Held: Special statute applies where expressly provided, but provisions of CrPC as to cognizance and second complaints continue to operate unless specifically excluded – No inconsistency found [Para 7].

Decision – Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Both complaints maintainable – High Court judgment upheld [Para 17].

Land Acquisition – Withdrawal under Section 48(1) – Gazette Notification Mandatory – Appellants constructed a sports complex on land already acquired by the State – They relied on a file noting by the then Urban Development Minister expressing intent to regularize the structure – Held: File notings do not constitute a final decision unless issued and authenticated as per constitutional requirements – No formal order under Section 48(1) was ever made or gazetted – Therefore, government never validly withdrew from acquisition [Paras 27–38].

Unauthorized Construction – Illegal Possession – Sports complex was built after award was passed and in violation of Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 – Appellants had no legal title or sanction for construction – Construction done in active connivance with public officials – Held: Appellants cannot seek protection or equity for illegal construction on acquired land [Paras 8–13, 43–44, 47].

Administrative Law – Validity of Ministerial Notings – A minister’s file noting without proper authorization or publication in gazette does not constitute a valid government decision – Such notings can be reversed or ignored by successors – Held: Noting dated 8.6.1999 could not be treated as decision under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act – No legal right accrued to appellants [Paras 29–38].

Article 14 – No Right to Parity in Illegality – Appellants claimed discrimination citing other instances where land was released from acquisition – Held: Burden of proof not discharged – Vague references to other cases do not establish parity – Article 14 cannot be invoked to compel the State to commit another illegality – Doctrine of negative equality rejected [Paras 41–42, 50].

Urban Planning – Rule of Law and Public Interest – Court reaffirmed the importance of strict enforcement of master plans and land use laws – Expressed concern over increasing political and bureaucratic support to illegal constructions – Held: Illegal structures cannot be legitimized in the name of public benefit or investment – Strong caution issued against supporting illegal urban developments [Paras 52–53].

Contempt – Consequence of Dismissal – Contempt petitions filed alongside civil appeals dismissed as a consequence of main appeal being dismissed [Para 55].

Decision: Civil appeals dismissed – Minister’s note held not to be a government order – No violation of Article 14 – No right to regularization – Three months’ time granted to appellants to vacate land subject to undertaking – Contempt petitions also dismissed.

Criminal Law – Murder or Culpable Homicide – Single Blow – Sentencing – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for causing death by a single lathi blow during a sudden quarrel without premeditation – Evidence revealed no prior enmity or common intention and only one blow inflicted – Held: Act not committed with intention to cause death or such bodily injury as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence reduced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment – Benefit of Section 428 CrPC granted [Paras 11–13, 21–26].

Culpable Homicide – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Applicability – Occurrence was sudden and unpremeditated – Accused did not act cruelly or take undue advantage – Knowledge that injury was likely to cause death could be inferred – Exception 4 to Section 300 attracted – Conviction appropriately converted to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 12, 21–23].

Sentencing – Principles and Factors – Court outlined factors relevant for awarding appropriate sentence: motive, suddenness of occurrence, intention or knowledge, number and gravity of injuries, nature of weapon, relationship between parties, and conduct after the incident – Held: Sentencing must be proportionate and tailored to the facts of each case [Paras 24–25].

Decision: Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment – Fine maintained – Benefit of Section 428 CrPC extended [Paras 26–27].

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Unauthorized Absence – Respondent, a Coal India executive, remained absent for over six months without authorization – Admitted charges during disciplinary proceedings – Enquiry held validly under Rule 29 of Conduct Rules – Respondent removed from service after issuance of second show-cause notice – High Court set aside removal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service – Division Bench granted back wages as well – Held: Admission of misconduct conclusively proved charge – Departmental enquiry was valid and not vitiated by any procedural irregularity – High Court erred in re-appreciating evidence and interfering with findings of fact [Paras 13–16, 18–21].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – High Court’s interference with penalty imposed in disciplinary proceedings – Not permissible unless findings are perverse or decision-making process is flawed – Reassessment of evidence by High Court was impermissible – No procedural impropriety or violation of natural justice shown [Paras 17–21].

Service Law – Punishment – Doctrine of Proportionality – Respondent fairly admitted guilt and cited personal reasons for absence – Resignation was offered but not accepted – In light of mitigating circumstances, removal from service held to be disproportionate to misconduct – Held: Though charge proved, punishment of removal grossly excessive and unduly harsh – Reinstatement directed without back wages as modified penalty [Paras 22–27].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – Respondent to be reinstated without back wages – Order of removal held disproportionate to misconduct – Doctrine of proportionality applied – Each party to bear own costs.

Constitutional Law – Office of Profit – Articles 101 to 104 – Retrospective Exemption – Validity of Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Act, 2006 – Challenge to retrospective removal of disqualification under Article 102(1)(a) on ground that it sought to re-induct Members of Parliament whose seats had allegedly fallen vacant – Held: Parliament is competent to enact retrospective exemption laws under Article 102(1)(a) – Such laws operate to remove disqualifications ab initio – Power to legislate retrospectively upheld in Kanta Kathuria v. Manak Chand Surana, Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain and Nongthombam Ibomcha Singh – Retrospective exemption does not violate constitutional provisions [Paras 16–19, 30–37].

Articles 101(3)(a) & 103 – Disqualification and Vacancy – Presidential Decision as Condition Precedent – Seat of a Member does not automatically become vacant upon incurring disqualification – Vacancy arises only when the President decides and declares disqualification under Article 103 – Till such declaration, Member continues in office – Distinction drawn between disqualification and declaration of vacancy – Decision in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) clarified – [Paras 24–31, 35–37].

Constitutional Practice – Role of Joint Committee – Absence of Reference to Joint Committee Not Fatal – Petitioners’ argument that retrospective exemption without consulting the Joint Committee on Offices of Profit violated constitutional convention rejected – Referral to Committee only a parliamentary practice, not a binding convention – Failure to follow past practice does not invalidate legislation validly enacted by Parliament – [Paras 38–39].

Equality before Law – Article 14 – Exemption of specific offices of profit does not offend equality clause – Each office to be assessed on its nature and impact; wholesale comparison invalid – Classification based on functionality permissible – [Para 38].

Legislative Competence – Parliament has plenary power under Article 102(1)(a) to declare by law, prospectively or retrospectively, that certain offices of profit shall not disqualify their holders – Retrospective validation statutes form part of settled constitutional practice – [Paras 16–17, 30–37].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) (Amendment) Act, 2006 held constitutionally valid – Retrospective exemption of 55 offices of profit upheld – No violation of Articles 14, 101–104, or constitutional convention – No costs [Para 40].

Criminal Law – Abuse of Process – Quashing of Proceedings – Bank officers encashed guarantors’ FDRs after loan default – Guarantor filed complaint under Sections 409, 422, 426 and 120B IPC alleging conspiracy and breach of trust – FIR against borrower and guarantors already lodged by bank – Held: Complaint was a counter-blast and lacked any specific allegation of criminal intent – No offence disclosed – Initiation of criminal process amounted to harassment and misuse of judicial machinery [Paras 2–7, 12–14, 16]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – High Court must quash proceedings when complaint is manifestly malicious and does not disclose offence – Magistrate failed to apply mind while issuing summons – Held: Criminal proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – High Court erred in refusing relief without adequate reasoning [Paras 13–16]

Public Servants – Discharge of Official Duty – Bank officers acting in discharge of their duties by recovering dues through encashment of FDRs provided by guarantors – Allegations of collusion baseless and unsupported by specific facts – Criminal complaint intended to deter lawful action and pressure officers [Paras 12, 16]

Summoning Order – Non-Application of Mind – Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants without examining complaint or accompanying documents – Complaint contained vague and sweeping accusations without material particulars – Magistrate failed to assess if prima facie case existed – Held: Summoning order unsustainable [Paras 14, 16]

Relief – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Complaint Case No. 916(c) of 2003 quashed – Clear case of abuse of process made out [Para 17]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 916(c) of 2003 quashed – High Court’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC set aside.