Criminal Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Unexplained and inordinate delay of over 25 years in completing investigation and commencing trial – Held: Such delay violates the fundamental right to speedy investigation and trial guaranteed under Article 21 – Proceedings pending for decades without sanction or progress amount to abuse of process – Continuation of prosecution unsustainable [Paras 12–16].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 CrPC – Power of quashing criminal proceedings – Scope – Held: Powers under Section 482 are wide but to be exercised sparingly – When continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process or violation of constitutional rights, courts must intervene to secure ends of justice [Paras 9–11].

Investigation – Jurisdiction of Officer – Initial investigation conducted by an officer lacking authority – Subsequent reinvestigation ordered by High Court not initiated for 17 years – No explanation from prosecution – Held: Delay not attributable to the accused – State’s inaction fatal to prosecution [Para 16].

Speedy Trial – Scope and Evolution – Right extends to all stages – investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and retrial – Delay attributable to systemic inefficiency cannot prejudice the accused – Article 21 ensures fair, just and reasonable procedure, which includes expeditious investigation and trial [Paras 12–15].

Constitutional Law – Enforcement of Article 21 – Even serious allegations cannot justify violation of constitutional rights – Courts bound to quash proceedings where prolonged delay defeats the ends of justice [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings in Special Case No. 29 of 1987 pending before the Special Judge, Muzaffarpur, quashed [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Murder – Appreciation of Evidence – Sole Eyewitness – Conviction can rest on testimony of a solitary witness only if his presence is natural, and his version is wholly reliable and free from contradictions – Where witness changes version, gives improbable account and is of doubtful credibility, conviction unsafe [Paras 16–18].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal by Convict – Prohibition on Enhancement of Conviction – High Court erred in converting conviction from Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder without intention) to Section 304 Part I IPC (with intention) in absence of State appeal or notice of enhancement – Held: Improper and contrary to law laid down in Abdul Aziz v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 10 SCC 283 [Paras 14, 20].

Evidence – Contradictory Versions – Where eyewitness gives one version in FIR and investigation, but substantially alters story in court, his testimony loses credibility – Case must rest on reliable, consistent and corroborated evidence – Prosecution version improbable and riddled with contradictions [Paras 17–18, 20].

Witness Credibility – “Chance Witness” – Presence of PW-7, brother of deceased, at night incident found to be unnatural – Evidence that he could see events through van headlights and open windows on a winter night held improbable – PW-7’s conduct in not helping deceased or taking him to hospital also doubtful – Held: Not a natural witness; unsafe to rely solely on such testimony [Paras 16–18].

Evidence – Hostile and Missing Witnesses – Out of three alleged eyewitnesses, one not examined, another hostile, leaving only brother of deceased as supporting witness – Absence of corroboration fatal to prosecution [Para 17].

Result: Prosecution story unreliable – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted giving benefit of doubt – Ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Para 20–21].

Civil Procedure Code – Section 11 – Res Judicata – Finality of Connected Suit – Dispute relating to management and possession of Gurudwara Sant Bela Sahib Patshahi Naumin—Two suits filed, one by Sant Hari Singh claiming Mohtmimship and another by the Managing Committee asserting control—Both suits consolidated and decided together—Trial court decreed Hari Singh’s suit and dismissed that of Managing Committee—First appellate court affirmed findings—Managing Committee failed to file second appeal—Held: Findings in that suit attained finality; appellants being members of the same committee litigating under the same title are bound by that decree—Principle of res judicata rightly applied by High Court [Paras 9–13].

Res Judicata – Scope and Application – Section 11 CPC applies where issues directly and substantially in issue in a former suit are between same parties or those claiming under them—Even if formal array of parties differs, identity of interest and title suffices—Failure to challenge decree in connected proceedings makes findings final and binding—Reliance placed on Premier Tyres Ltd. v. KSRTC, AIR 1993 SC 1202; Badri Narayan Singh v. Kamdeo Prasad Singh, AIR 1962 SC 338; and Union of India v. V. Pundarikakshudu & Sons, AIR 2003 SC 3209 [Paras 14–15].

Connected Appeals – Effect of Non-Filing – When two connected suits involving same parties and issues are decided together, and decree in one is not appealed against, findings therein become conclusive and operate as res judicata in appeal from the other—Finality attaches to unchallenged decree and cannot be reopened indirectly through appeal in connected case [Paras 13–15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court rightly applied res judicata – Findings in earlier connected suit having attained finality bind appellants – No costs [Para 16].

Public Interest Litigation – Appointment and Continuation of Police Officer – Challenge to appointment of Director General of Police, Gujarat, on the ground of alleged misconduct and failure during the 2002 communal riots – Allegation that his continuation would impede justice in riot-related prosecutions – State contended that review of all 2020 riot cases had been completed by Scrutiny Committee as per earlier Supreme Court directions – Only 30 “A” summary cases remained, which were also disposed of – Held: Petition has become redundant since all relevant cases were reviewed and the officer was due to retire shortly – No justification to interfere in service matters within executive prerogative [Paras 4–7].

Judicial Review – Scope – Appointment of Public Servants – Appointment to sensitive post such as Director General of Police lies within domain of the State Government – Courts ordinarily will not interfere unless clear illegality or mala fides shown – Doctrine of judicial restraint reiterated [Para 7].

Apprehension of Bias – Alleged Possibility of Influence over Trial Courts – Mere apprehension of possible pressure on subordinate courts is speculative – Courts in Gujarat presumed independent and not amenable to administrative pressure – No basis for such assumption [Para 6].

Administrative Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Decision to initiate disciplinary or criminal proceedings against a government officer lies within executive authority – Court declined to conduct fact-finding inquiry or issue directions for prosecution [Para 7].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous – Continuation of Shri P.C. Pandey as DGP held inconsequential – No order for disciplinary action – No interference warranted [Paras 5–9].

Arbitration – Jurisdiction – Exclusive Forum Clause – Validity – Purchase orders and agreements between the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (appellant) and the respondent contained clauses stipulating that all disputes shall be subject to jurisdiction of courts at Jaipur only – Respondent nevertheless filed petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before Calcutta High Court – Held: Where two or more courts have jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC, parties can by agreement restrict jurisdiction to one such court – Such an ouster clause is valid and not contrary to Section 28 of the Contract Act or public policy – Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction in view of express forum selection clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on courts at Jaipur [Paras 15–22].

Interpretation of Section 31(3) & 31(4), Arbitration Act, 1940 – Scope – Section 31(4) operates only where an application under the Act is made before a competent court having jurisdiction – Competency is determined with reference to Section 20 CPC and the arbitration agreement – Since parties agreed that only Jaipur Court shall have jurisdiction, application under Section 20 made before Calcutta High Court was not maintainable – Non-obstante clause in Section 31(4) does not override a valid ouster clause conferring jurisdiction on one competent court [Paras 23–28].

Contract – Ouster Clause – Construction and Enforceability – Clause 30 of General Conditions of Contract and Clause 7 of bank guarantee clearly provided that the contract shall be subject to jurisdiction of “courts only at Jaipur in Rajasthan” – Such wording is explicit, unambiguous and binding – Expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies – Mention of Jaipur courts excludes all others – Agreements validly restrict jurisdiction to Jaipur [Paras 17–22].

Precedents Followed – A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies, (1989) 2 SCC 163; Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., (1971) 1 SCC 286; M/s. Angile Insulations v. M/s. Davy Ashmore India Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 153; Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. v. Puromatic Filters (P) Ltd., (2004) 4 SCC 671 – Principles reiterated that forum selection clause confining jurisdiction to one competent court is valid and binding [Paras 17–20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Division Bench of Calcutta High Court set aside – Held that only courts at Jaipur, Rajasthan have jurisdiction to entertain arbitration proceedings between the parties – Calcutta High Court directed to transfer records to District Judge, Jaipur for further proceedings [Paras 29–30].

Civil Procedure – Award of Costs – Section 35 and 35A CPC – Appellant filed suit for specific performance – Both trial court and High Court found plaintiff and defendants guilty of falsehood and imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 1 lakh each to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee – Held: While costs are discretionary under Section 35 CPC, they are subject to statutory limitations – Compensatory costs under Section 35A CPC capped at Rs. 3,000 even for vexatious litigation – High Court exceeded jurisdiction by awarding Rs. 1 lakh as exemplary costs in civil litigation governed by CPC [Paras 5–6, 8]

Civil Procedure – Costs Payable to State – Misdirection – High Court imposed costs for misuse of judicial infrastructure and stated that amount be paid to “State” – However, directed payment to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee – Held: Legal Services Committee is not ‘State’ for this purpose – Direction corrected by Supreme Court – Amount to be remitted to State Government, not Legal Services Committee [Paras 10–11]

Litigation Ethics – Perjury – Whether Prosecution Mandatory – High Court found both parties had lied on oath but opted to impose costs in lieu of prosecution, citing judicial burden – Supreme Court noted the issue involves moral and ethical questions and kept it open for future consideration – Courts should not avoid prosecution for perjury solely due to caseload [Para 9]

Judicial Discipline – Supreme Court’s Limited Interference under Article 136 – Even though costs order may not be strictly correct, Court declined to interfere since no injustice caused – Appellant granted extended time to deposit amount [Paras 3–4, 8]

Legal Reform – Need for Realistic Cost Regime – Supreme Court observed that current system of nominal costs fails to deter frivolous or abusive litigation – Suggested that more realistic and deterrent cost model may be necessary – Matter left to Law Commission for future consideration [Para 7]

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Costs order not interfered with – However, direction modified – Amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to be transferred by Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee to State Government.

Slum Rehabilitation – Competing Claims – Developer’s proposal rejected due to overlap with already approved scheme and lack of Annexure I for one of the plots – Held: SRA's rejection justified – Composite application without complete documentation for F.P. No. 569 (Part) was invalid – Developer had not annexed Annexure I with original proposal [Paras 29, 54–56, 62]

Development Control – No Objection Certificate – NOC issued by Ward Officer held invalid – Officer not competent to bind the Municipal Corporation – Certificate could not create vested rights or bar consideration of alternative proposals – Such NOCs cannot remain operative indefinitely in absence of statutory authority [Paras 41–42, 47–48, 63]

Administrative Law – Delay by Planning Authorities – Criticism by Court – SRA and Municipal Corporation failed to process applications efficiently – Application kept pending for years without scrutiny or rejection – Such delay unjustified, particularly in schemes affecting urban poor – Attracts arbitrariness under Article 14 [Paras 63–64]

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Developer had locus standi – High Court erred in dismissing writ solely on ground of lack of standing – Petitioner was competent to invoke Article 226 – However, dismissal upheld on merits due to incomplete application and pre-existing sanctioned scheme [Paras 31, 63]

Policy Guidelines vs. Statutory Authority – Guidelines issued under 1971 Act are binding unless ultra vires – While not having statutory force, application process was governed by these circulars – No law cited to show inconsistency or invalidity of guidelines – Held: Application rightly rejected for non-compliance [Paras 11, 53]

Property Rights – Article 300A – Whether circulars mandating lease of private land violate constitutional right to property – Issue raised but not decided – Court notes that validity of such non-statutory schemes affecting landowners' rights remains open for future adjudication [Paras 45–46]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Rejection of developer’s proposal by Slum Rehabilitation Authority upheld – Application was materially defective due to lack of mandatory Annexure I – High Court’s decision affirmed on different reasoning – Directions issued for better regulation and administrative efficiency [Paras 63–64]

Criminal Procedure – Revision – Right of Hearing – Section 401(2) CrPC – Magistrate had taken cognizance and proceeded under Section 200 CrPC after rejecting prayer for police investigation under Section 156(3) – High Court reversed that order in revision filed by complainant without notice to the appellant – Held: Even at pre-summoning stage, where Magistrate has taken cognizance and the accused is likely to be prejudiced, High Court is required to give such person a hearing under Section 401(2) – Non-hearing renders impugned order unsustainable [Paras 6, 10–12, 18–19]

Cognizance – Meaning and Effect – Once Magistrate applies mind to complaint and opts to proceed under Section 200 CrPC instead of directing police investigation, it amounts to taking cognizance – Such decision creates procedural rights for persons named in the complaint [Paras 9–10, 18]

Natural Justice – Applicability at Pre-Summoning Stage – Though the accused has no right to participate in inquiry under Section 202 CrPC, once a Magistrate has applied mind and rejected request under Section 156(3), accused is entitled to hearing in any revisional challenge to that order under Section 401(2) – High Court’s failure to hear appellant violated principles of audi alteram partem [Paras 12–13, 19]

Power of Magistrate – Scope of Inquiry under Section 202 CrPC – Inquiry under Section 202 is meant to assess whether there is sufficient ground to proceed – It is not a trial – Magistrate may defer issuance of process to ascertain truth of complaint through complainant's own evidence – Defence of accused not relevant at that stage – However, revisional interference with such order requires hearing of prejudiced party [Paras 14–17]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Matter remitted to High Court to decide afresh after impleading and hearing the appellant.

Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act – Appellant convicted for causing death of wife by poison four years after marriage – Prosecution relied on general allegations of harassment due to infertility and dowry insufficiency – No specific evidence of dowry demand or cruelty “soon before death” – Held: Prosecution failed to establish key ingredient of proximity – Presumption under Section 113B not attracted – Conviction under Section 304B IPC unsustainable, Acquittal [Paras 10–17, 21–22]

Criminal Law – Presumption and Burden of Proof – Section 113B Evidence Act – Presumption arises only when prosecution proves that deceased was subjected to cruelty for dowry "soon before death" – Mere allegations of past harassment without proximity to death insufficient – Dowry-related cruelty must have live link with death to invoke presumption – Held: Legal fiction under Section 304B IPC and Section 113B requires strict proof of statutory ingredients [Paras 12–17]

Evidence – Section 106 Evidence Act – Failure to Explain Circumstances of Death – Death occurred in matrimonial home due to poison – Though Section 106 could have been invoked to shift burden to accused, prosecution chose to proceed only under Section 304B and failed to prove ingredients – High Court did not convict under Section 302 – Held: Conviction cannot be altered to Section 302 in absence of appropriate charge and trial [Paras 19–21]

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Effect – FIR implicated three relatives of accused – All acquitted by High Court – No evidence that appellant alone had exclusive access to victim or caused her death – Held: Acquittal of co-accused renders prosecution version doubtful – Conviction of appellant alone cannot be sustained [Paras 22–23]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 304B IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – To be released forthwith unless required in any other case.