Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process – Appellants sought quashing of criminal case alleging bigamy, dowry harassment, and conspiracy – Allegations vague and delayed – No specific role attributed to accused other than husband – High Court refused to quash, holding charges can be contested at framing stage – Held: Complaint filed nearly 22 months after alleged dowry demand – Lacked material particulars – Continuance of proceedings amounts to abuse of process – Quashed under Category 7 of Bhajan Lal case [Paras 2, 4, 8–9]

Marriage Law – Validity of Second Marriage – Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act – Appellant No.1 remarried after ex parte divorce decree – Time to file appeal had expired – Restoration application filed much later – Held: Remarriage not barred under Section 15 – Proceedings under Section 494 IPC not sustainable [Paras 3–4]

Criminal Procedure – Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Scope and Limitations – Powers under Section 482 are wide but must be used sparingly – Intended to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process – Cannot be invoked to stifle legitimate prosecution but applicable where prosecution is clearly malicious or baseless – Present case justified interference to secure ends of justice [Paras 5–7]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Proceedings in Complaint Case No. 896 of 1994 (later renumbered as Criminal Case No. 931 of 1995) pending before the Special CJM, Varanasi quashed.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction – Appellant and co-accused allegedly entered victim’s home at night and assaulted family with deadly weapons – Deceased sustained sword injuries and died – Appellant identified as first assailant who stabbed deceased in abdomen – Conviction under Section 302 IPC confirmed based on credible testimony of injured and related eyewitnesses – Recovery of sword with blood matching deceased’s blood group further corroborated prosecution version [Paras 4, 6]

Eyewitness Testimony – Injured Witnesses – PWs 7 and 13 sustained injuries during incident – Evidence of injured witnesses carries high probative value and cannot be lightly disregarded – Testimony of PW10 (informant and eyewitness) consistent and corroborative – Held: Injured and related witnesses not inherently unreliable—Clear, cogent and credible version sufficient to sustain conviction despite acquittal of co-accused [Paras 6]

Conviction – Acquittal of Co-accused – Legal Principles – Acquittal of co-accused due to exaggerations or insufficient evidence does not automatically vitiate conviction of another accused – Conviction can be upheld where role is specifically proved against one accused through independent credible evidence – Sword blow attributed specifically to appellant and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence [Paras 5–6]

Defence Plea – Self-inflicted Injury – Appellant claimed injuries from complainant party – Doctor opined injuries were superficial and possibly self-inflicted – Trial Court and High Court rightly rejected defence plea [Para 6]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302, 307, 324, 148, 452, and 323 read with Section 149 IPC upheld – Evidence of injured and eyewitnesses credible – Recovery of weapon and forensic evidence supports conviction – No merit in appeal [Para 7]

Criminal Law – Rape – Sentencing – Section 376(1) IPC – Minimum sentence prescribed is 7 years unless Court records “adequate and special reasons” – High Court reduced sentence to 5 years without assigning any reasons – Held impermissible – Sentence below statutory minimum cannot be awarded absent cogent reasons [Paras 5-6, 21-23].

Sentencing – Principles – Rape is a heinous offence violating dignity of woman – Court emphasized proportionality, deterrence, and societal impact of crimes against women – Leniency without justification undermines public confidence in justice system – Adequate punishment must reflect conscience of society and respond to its cry for justice [Paras 9-20].

Judicial Duty – Adequate and special reasons – Requirement cumulative – Trial and appellate courts equally bound – Mere lapse of time or sympathy not sufficient – Reduction of sentence without such reasons renders judgment unsustainable [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order reducing sentence set aside – Respondent directed to serve minimum sentence of 7 years’ RI under Section 376 IPC – Convictions under Sections 323 and 341 IPC unaffected [Paras 24-25].

Contempt of Court – Civil Contempt – Alleged violation of orders dated 07.03.2006 and 09.03.2007 – Petitioners alleged UPPSC suppressed facts, shifted stands and refused to disclose marks and cut-off – Respondents (Chairman and Secretary of UPPSC, and State) filed affidavits explaining compliance steps, production of merit lists and reasons for non-recommendation – Tendered unconditional apology – Held: No willful or deliberate disobedience established – Mere error of judgment or different interpretation of orders does not constitute contempt [Paras 26-27].

Service Law – Eligibility Criteria – Posts of Principals and Senior Lecturers – Issue already settled in Mohd. Altaf case – Petitioners’ eligibility recognized, interview conducted in 2006 and names included in revised merit list – However, no vacancies available against 1997 batch due to prior adjustment of 1996 candidates – Respondents’ stand explained with vacancy charts – Held: Contempt not proved, but legitimate claims of petitioners may be considered if eligible in law [Paras 18-25, 28].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Scope – Court cannot materially add to or alter original order in contempt proceedings – Relief beyond ensuring compliance not permissible – Substantive grievances must be agitated separately [Para 26].

Decision: Contempt petitions dismissed – Respondents not guilty of willful disobedience – Petitioners’ claims may still be considered on merits by authorities in accordance with law – Interlocutory applications also disposed of [Paras 27-28].

Criminal Procedure – Right to Speedy Trial – Delay of Over Two Decades – Chargesheet Filed in 1991, Trial Not Commenced Till 2008 – Appellant Faced Investigation and Prosecution for Over 21 Years – Held: Violation of Fundamental Right Under Article 21 – Proceedings Quashed – FIR lodged in 1987, chargesheet filed in 1991 – Appellant facing prosecution for over two decades without commencement of trial – No explanation from prosecution for delay – Trial court record remained with High Court for several years due to writ petition – Held: Constitutional right to speedy trial violated – Proceedings cannot continue [Paras 14–18].

Criminal Law – Powers Under Section 482 CrPC and Article 227 – Scope – High Court Must Interfere Where Continuation of Proceedings Would Be Abuse of Process – Court Must Exercise Inherent Powers Sparingly and in Rare Cases – Though High Court has wide powers under Section 482 CrPC and Article 227, they are to be exercised cautiously and only when ends of justice demand interference – In the present case, continuation of trial after inordinate delay amounts to abuse of process [Paras 10–12].

Juvenile Justice – Date of Occurrence Determines Age – Appellant Was 18 at Time of Alleged Offence – However, Age Irrelevant in View of Disproportionate Delay and Absence of Direct Evidence – Held: Prosecution Cannot Sustain – Appellant claimed minority at time of offence – Court declined to examine juvenile plea due to disposal on other grounds – No substantive material to link appellant directly with offence – Accusations vague and general [Paras 8–9, 19].

Prosecution – Delay Not Attributable to Accused – Failure to Examine Any Witness Even After Filing Chargesheet – Investigative Lapses and Administrative Negligence Cannot Override Fundamental Rights – No Exceptional Circumstance to Justify Delay – Delay entirely attributable to prosecution – No action taken to expedite trial – State failed to demonstrate any compelling justification – Held: Proceedings vitiated [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 78 of 1987 quashed against the appellant – Appellant’s right under Article 21 of the Constitution to a speedy trial held violated – No need to examine merits or juvenile plea [Paras 18–20].

Military Law – General Court Martial – Validity of Convening Authority – Section 109 of the Army Act – Appellant challenged jurisdiction of GCM alleging it was not convened by competent authority – Held: Warrant issued by Chief of Army Staff empowering field officers to convene GCM was valid – Convening order issued by Major General commanding 16 Corps was lawful – GCM not vitiated [Paras 10–11]

Confession – Voluntariness – Summary of Evidence – Appellant claimed his confessional statement was extracted under coercion – GCM found statement voluntary and supported by witnesses – Held: Statement recorded in presence of independent officers and not retracted during trial – Admissible and reliable evidence – GCM rightly relied on confession in convicting the appellant [Paras 12–13]

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Court Martial Proceedings – Single Judge of High Court quashed GCM proceedings citing lack of evidence and procedural irregularities – Division Bench reversed – Held: High Court under Article 226 cannot sit in appeal over findings of GCM – Judicial review is limited to examining legality of decision-making process, not reappreciation of evidence – Single Judge erred in interfering with GCM's conclusions [Paras 15–16]

Army Discipline – Section 63 of Army Act – Act prejudicial to good order and military discipline – Allegation of crossing into Pakistan while on leave – GCM held full trial, examined witnesses, provided opportunity for defence – Sentence of imprisonment and dismissal from service confirmed by competent authority – No procedural illegality found [Paras 13–14]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Division Bench upheld – No infirmity in GCM proceedings – No costs awarded [Paras 17–19]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Principles reiterated from Bhajan Lal case – FIRs and charge-sheets cannot be quashed merely on allegations of mala fides if prima facie material discloses cognizable offence – Mala fides of complainant irrelevant when ingredients of offence exist – High Court rightly observed its jurisdiction under Section 482 to be sparing and limited – Supreme Court reiterated caution that such powers should be exercised in rarest of rare cases [Paras 25-31].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Categories of cases warranting quashment summarized – Courts cannot appreciate evidence or test witness credibility at Section 482 stage – Defence pleas or contradictions are matters for trial – Where charge-sheet is filed and charges framed, quashing should not be granted ordinarily [Paras 28-32].

Constitution – Article 142 – Power to Do Complete Justice – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings in light of peculiar facts – Appellants were medical students facing continuous harassment, multiple litigations, and prolonged trials – Court emphasized Article 142 power is elastic, residuary, corrective, and transcends statutory limitations to ensure equity and justice – Criminal proceedings quashed to protect appellants’ careers while directing them to file written apology – No compensation ordered due to their status as students [Paras 34-41].

Criminal Procedure – FIRs arising out of college disputes – FIRs lodged by college staff alleging assault, criminal intimidation, and damage to property by appellants – Trial court framed charges – Supreme Court noted both sides had exchanged allegations and apologies – Held continuation of proceedings would serve no purpose – Proceedings quashed under Article 142 despite existence of prima facie material [Paras 25, 33-40].

Judicial Power – Scope of Supreme Court under Articles 136, 142 – Even where quashing not permissible under Section 482 CrPC, Court may exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to secure complete justice in unique circumstances – High Court’s refusal to quash not interfered with on Section 482 grounds but proceedings quashed directly under Article 142 [Paras 35-37, 39-41].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 412/2005 and Case Crime No. 21/2006 quashed in exercise of powers under Article 142 – Appellants directed to file written apology before trial court – No order as to compensation [Paras 37-40].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based on Voice Identification – PW8, grandfather of accused, deposed that he identified accused Dalbir Singh by his voice during night-time assault resulting in murder – Though no other assailant was identified or named, trial court and High Court accepted PW8’s testimony – Held: Voice identification by a person closely acquainted with the accused is legally valid even in dark conditions – Conviction upheld [Paras 4–7]

Evidence Law – Sole Witness – Related Witness – Credibility – PW8, a relative of both accused and deceased, was the sole identifying witness – Held: Relationship alone does not discredit testimony – Courts must assess credibility and corroboration – Evidence of closely related witness can be relied upon if found cogent and trustworthy [Paras 4, 7]

Criminal Law – Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus – Doctrine Rejected – Though co-accused were acquitted, conviction of appellant upheld based on credible specific evidence – Held: Indian courts do not apply this maxim as mandatory rule – Evidence must be carefully sifted – Conviction can be sustained if grain can be separated from chaff [Paras 8–10]

Criminal Trial – Discrepancies – Normal vs. Material – Witness discrepancies must be assessed for materiality – Normal discrepancies due to observation error, lapse of time, or stress do not undermine credibility – Only material discrepancies affect the case adversely [Para 10]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC affirmed – No interference warranted with concurrent findings of fact.

Constitutional Law – Creation of Judicial Districts – Validity of Notification – Delhi Bar Association challenged the notification issued by the Lt. Governor on 28.06.2000 dividing Delhi into nine civil districts – Petitioners argued that the Lt. Governor had no authority and that only Delhi Legislative Assembly could decide such matters – Held: Lt. Governor acted lawfully under Section 19 of Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Notification valid [Paras 42–53]

Judicial Review – Policy Decisions – Administrative Reorganization – Reorganization of courts in Delhi had been under discussion since 1979 – Multiple stakeholders including High Court, Delhi Government, and Central Government involved – Supreme Court had issued directions earlier in WP(C) No. 741/1989 – Held: Policy decisions taken after such long deliberation cannot be interfered with unless arbitrary or illegal – No such issue found here [Paras 36–39]

Separation of Powers – Court’s Power to Issue Directions – Objection raised that Supreme Court overstepped by directing bifurcation of courts – Rejected – Directions were aimed at implementation of overdue administrative reforms and did not amount to legislation – Held: Court acted within its powers to ensure efficient justice delivery [Paras 40–41]

Interpretation of “State Government” – Applicability of General Clauses Act – Petitioners argued Bengal General Clauses Act should apply, making the Lt. Governor’s action invalid – Rejected – General Clauses Act, 1897 applies post-Article 239AA – Lt. Governor acts on behalf of NCT of Delhi under constitutional authority [Paras 44–45]

Repugnancy – Central vs State Legislation – Punjab Courts Act, 1918 is a central law extended to Delhi – Even if Delhi Legislative Assembly had similar powers, its laws would be subordinate to central law under Article 239AA – Held: Notification under a central law prevails – No conflict or illegality [Paras 49–52]

Decision: Writ Petitions No. 437/2000 and 451/2000 dismissed – Notification upheld as valid – WP(C) No. 741/1989 delinked and TC(C) No. 38/1996 sent to Delhi High Court for decision on merits.