Family Law - Senior Citizens Act – Eviction of Son from Family Home – Claim of SelfAcquired Property – Dispute Pending – Eviction Refused – Appellantmother sought eviction of son Krishna Kumar alleging harassment – Tribunal allowed limited stay; Appellate Tribunal ordered eviction – Supreme Court found property was already transferred by deceased husband to daughters and others – Held: With title under challenge and son not shown to be misbehaving post order, eviction not warranted – Maintenance right under Section 4/5 sufficient [Paras 4–5, 17–29, 33– 35].

Right to Residence – Property Already Transferred – Tribunal’s Power to Evict Limited – Court held that once senior citizen has gifted or sold property, eviction claim loses basis unless transfer itself is void – Since property partly gifted to daughters and sold to third parties, claim of exclusive ownership failed – Eviction jurisdiction under Section 23 not applicable absent interest in property [Paras 24–26, 32].

Pending Civil Suits – Right to Share in Property – Eviction Cannot

Prejudice Title Claims – Respondent-son had filed civil suits claiming 1/6^th share and seeking cancellation of gift deeds – Supreme Court held eviction under Senior Citizens Act should not interfere with pending title adjudication – Tribunal ought to have refrained from ordering eviction until title claims are resolved [Paras 19, 24, 33].

Scope of Tribunal’s Powers – Maintenance, Not Possession – Eviction Discretionary – Tribunal may order eviction only if necessary to protect senior citizens – No post-order misbehavior by son proved – High Court rightly balanced equities and limited son’s occupancy to one room and shop – Appellant’s right to peaceful living protected without ordering eviction [Paras 27–29, 31–34].

Decision: Civil appeal dismissed – High Court’s order setting aside eviction upheld – Tribunal’s conditions on occupancy and maintenance to continue – Eviction may be reconsidered only if misbehavior resumes or title dispute is resolved [Paras 35–37].

Criminal Proceedings – Cross FIRs between Advocates – Quashing in Interest of Justice – Incident arose from personal animosity between two lawyers – First FIR registered by appellant alleged physical assault; second FIR by respondent alleged abuse and threats – Supreme Court held both FIRs stemmed from same transaction and prolonged animosity – Quashed both FIRs to ensure professional harmony [Paras 1–4, 9, 16–17].

Conduct of Advocate – Threat to Court – Apology and Undertaking Accepted – Appellant threatened suicide during court hearing if FIR against respondent was quashed – Court termed conduct contemptuous but accepted unconditional written apology and undertaking not to repeat – Chose magnanimity over punishment in interest of professional reform [Paras 5, 11–14].

Article 142 – Substantial Justice – Court Power to Quash Proceedings – Court

emphasized duty to deliver justice even where parties fail to appreciate their best interest – Invoked Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings, emphasizing future professional conduct over past conflict [Paras 15–17].

Settlement – Unconditional Apology by Respondent Advocate – Respondent filed affidavit apologizing to Court, Bar Council, Bar Association, and appellant – Undertook to maintain cordial conduct – Court recognized sincerity and included apology on record while granting relief [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – FIR No. 500/2017 and STC No. 607/2019 quashed entirely –

FIR No. 499/2017 and C.C. No. 106/2022 quashed only against second respondent – Apologies and undertakings recorded – Past animosity held resolved through judicial intervention [Para 17].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Circle Rates – Theory of Deduction Inapplicable under 2013 Act – Appellant challenged award of compensation based on circle rates notified under the Stamp Act – Supreme Court held: Section 26(1) of 2013 Act mandates highest of stamp value, average sale, or consent compensation – Collector’s discretion under Explanation 4 to adjust valuation must be reasoned – Theory of deduction developed under 1894 Act cannot override clear mandate of 2013 Act – No deduction permitted in absence of valid formation of opinion by Collector – Appeals dismissed [Paras 2, 21, 24– 27, 31, 41–43].

Circle Rate – Evidentiary Weight – Scientific Fixation Encouraged – Court analyzed legislative intent behind circle rates and valuation guidelines under 2018 Rules – Emphasized that properly fixed rates reflect fair market value and aid ease of doing business and tax compliance – Directed that fixing of circle rates be done scientifically and transparently by expert bodies – State authorities cannot disown rates they have themselves fixed [Paras 33–39, 42].

Acquisition Act 2013 – Sections 26, 27, 28 – Role of Collector’s Opinion – Collector must apply statutory criteria under Section 26(1) and then assess need for adjustment via Explanation 4 – Any enhancement or deduction must be based on recorded reasons – Collector’s failure to exercise discretion cannot be ground to reduce compensation awarded by Commissioner based on applicable circle rate [Paras 26–27, 31–32].

Arbitration Award – Interference Limited – High Court and District Court rightly upheld award passed by Commissioner under Section 3G(5) of National Highways Act read with Arbitration Act – Award based on correct application of

2013 Act and valuation guidelines – No arbitrariness or legal error shown – Objections rightly rejected under Section 34 of Arbitration Act [Paras 6–7, 12– 13, 31].

Decision: Civil appeals dismissed – Compensation based on Collector’s  Guidelines upheld – No reduction allowed by applying theory of deduction – Circle rates held binding absent valid reasoned departure by competent authority – No costs awarded [Paras 41–43].

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against conviction - Inconsistent Witness Testimony – Conviction Set Aside – Deceased Mohan Singh was allegedly attacked by five men – Trial Court convicted all; High Court acquitted one – Remaining four appellants challenged conviction – Supreme Court found key prosecution witnesses (family members) gave embellished versions, timelines contradicted FIR and each other – Held: Evidence untrustworthy, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Convictions set aside [Paras 7–17, 19].

Delay in Recording Witness Statements – Impact on Credibility – Statements of material witnesses, including child witness and wife of deceased, recorded after 7–17 days – Court held such unexplained delay casts serious doubt on credibility and integrity of prosecution case – Investigating Officer’s testimony confirmed discrepancies [Paras 14, 17].

Medical Evidence – Discrepancies on Cause of Death – Post-mortem attributed death to gunshot injury but later clarified as stab wound – Bullet not recovered – Held: Medical evidence failed to support firearm theory – Seizure of pistol from accused Arun rendered inconsequential [Paras 5, 18].

Benefit of Doubt – Sole Reliance on Dubious Oral Testimony – Court emphasized need for credible, corroborated evidence in criminal trials – Rule of caution invoked due to admitted enmity between accused and deceased – Held: Conviction cannot rest solely on suspicious family testimony – Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 16, 19–20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and High Court set aside – All four appellants acquitted – Those on bail discharged; remaining accused (Ramlal) to be released unless required in other matters – Fine amounts to be refunded [Para 20].

Land Acquisition – Ownership Dispute – TNHB Ownership Upheld – The Court upheld the High Court's decision confirming that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) was the rightful owner of 4.95 acres of acquired land, including the disputed 0.90 cents – Held: Earlier mistake in judgment recording the area as 4.05 acres was clarified based on the compensation amount which matched acquisition records [Paras 1-2].

Invalid Sale – Ratification Deed Ineffective – Appellant’s Title Rejected - The sale deeds relied upon by the appellant were held invalid as sellers were not owners of the land – The Ratification Deed dated 19.01.2004 had no legal effect – Held: Patta issued in favour of appellant and his predecessors was rightly cancelled [Paras 3-6].

Violation of Court Order – Unauthorized Allotment of Flats – Legal Consequences – The appellant, despite Supreme Court orders, sold two flats to third parties – Held: Allotments made post High Court and Supreme Court orders are void; purchasers may pursue independent remedies against appellant [Paras 7-8].

Equitable Relief – Innocent Third-Party Flat Buyers Protected – Ownership Recognized - The Court, acknowledging TNHB’s lapse and the position of third-party purchasers, allowed 54 flat buyers to retain possession and be treated as absolute owners – Rs. 5 crore deposited by appellant to be treated as consideration for land – Remaining unsold flats to be disposed of by TNHB [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeals Disposed of – No Rights Decided as to Appellant’s Claims Against Vendors - The Court declined to decide on any claims appellant may have against those who sold land to him – Appeals disposed of with final directions [Paras 12-14].

Matrimonial Muslim Law - Ex-Parte Divorce Decree – Subsequent Remarriage – Decree Restored – The appellant-wife obtained a divorce decree under Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 which became final and pursuant to which she remarried and had a child – The Court held that restoration of the matrimonial case would serve no purpose since appellant's subsequent marriage is a significant supervening circumstance – Held: The High Court erred in restoring the case without considering the appellant’s subsequent marriage – Divorce decree dated 25.11.2011 restored [Paras 6-7].

Consent of Respondent – Acceptance of Divorce – Respondent Agrees to Accept Divorce – During the hearing, the respondent-husband accepted the dissolution of marriage and waived further claims – Held: Both parties expressed no objection to closing all disputes and accepted the divorce – Court confirmed restoration of the original decree [Para 7].

Termination of All Pending Litigations – Powers under Article 142 – Court Quashes All Cases – In exercise of powers under Article 142, Supreme Court quashed all pending civil, criminal, and matrimonial cases between the parties filed against each other – Directed that no further proceedings shall continue between the parties and neither party shall have any claim against the other including maintenance or mehar – Held: Complete and final settlement of all litigations between the parties [Paras 11-13].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned order set aside – Original divorce decree dated 25.11.2011 restored – All related cases quashed – Parties barred from initiating any further proceedings against each other – Appeal allowed accordingly [Paras 12-13].
 

Police Misconduct – Violation of Arnesh Kumar Guidelines – High-Handedness Found – The petitioner alleged physical abuse by Haryana Police during investigation and wrongful arrest without adherence to guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar (2014) – The Supreme Court observed prima facie that there was evident high-handedness on part of the police – Held, even an accused is entitled to protection of dignity and due process – Director General of Police directed to ensure zero-tolerance against such practices [Paras 1-7].

Checklist under Section 41 CrPC – Mechanically Filled – Judicial Magistrates to Scrutinize – The Court noted that the statutory checklist under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) CrPC was filled mechanically without application of mind – Held that such practice defeats the very purpose of judicial oversight under Arnesh Kumar – Judicial Magistrates also directed to not routinely accept such checklists without scrutiny [Paras 8-10].

Sensitization of Police – Directions Issued – Court cautioned the Director General of Police, Haryana and all subordinate officers to be vigilant and careful in exercising arrest powers – Directed that all States and Union Territories, including Delhi Police, be reminded of their obligation to follow safeguards under D.K. Basu, Arnesh Kumar, and Somnath cases – Registry to circulate the order to DGPs and CP, Delhi [Paras 7, 11, 16].

Final Decision – Petition Closed – Officers Cautioned – The Court, noting that the criminal case was already pending, chose not to interfere further but issued strong caution to the police officers involved – Director General of Police directed to ensure such incidents do not recur – SLP disposed with liberty to parties to avail remedies in accordance with law [Paras 6, 7, 13].

Civil Writ - Enforcement of The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act - Definition of Advertisement – Wide and Inclusive Scope – Section 2 of 1954 Act – The Court emphasized that the definition of ‘advertisement’ under Section 2 of the 1954 Act is wide, covering not only printed or broadcast media but also oral announcements, notices, wrappers, labels, and even messages conveyed via light, sound, or smoke – Such advertisements aimed at promoting drugs or magic remedies are brought within the regulatory framework.

Prohibition on Advertisements – Total Bar on Specific Categories – Sections 3, 4, and 5 of 1954 Act – The Court reiterated that there is an absolute prohibition on advertisements relating to drugs and magic remedies for treatment of diseases mentioned under the Schedule or Rules – Misleading advertisements and those creating false impressions are strictly prohibited – The prohibition applies not only to advertisers but also to those involved in publication or preparation of such advertisements.

Implementation Failure – States’ Non-Compliance – The Court observed that despite being in force for over 70 years, the 1954 Act is not being implemented in letter and spirit – Directed the States and Union Territories to appoint sufficient Gazetted Officers and scrutinizing officers as required under Sections 8 and Rule 3 of the 1955 Rules within one month – Emphasized that enforcement machinery is lacking and needs urgent attention.

Creation of Grievance Redressal Mechanism – Mandatory Directions – The Court directed all States/UTs to set up a public Grievance Redressal Mechanism for reporting objectionable advertisements within two months – Mechanism should include toll-free numbers and email facilities – The complaints must be forwarded to the authorized officers who are required to take prompt action and initiate criminal proceedings under the 1954 Act and BNSS.

Sensitization and Public Awareness – Role of Legal Services Authorities – The Court directed the National, State, and District Legal Services Authorities to conduct sensitization programmes to educate the public on the dangers of objectionable advertisements and their adverse health consequences – Highlighted the need for awareness among the masses.

Development of Dashboard – Compliance Monitoring – The Court reaffirmed its earlier direction (Order dated 30th July 2024) that the Union of India, through the Ministry of Ayush, must create a dashboard for recording complaints and actions taken – Granted three months to implement the same – Dashboard to ensure transparency and facilitate prosecution under the 1954 Act.

Non-Compliance by States – Specific Directions to Defaulting States – Court noted non-compliance by 17 States/UTs, including Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh, among others – Ordered these States to file compliance affidavits by 30th April 2025 and to cooperate in setting up grievance redressal systems and enforcement mechanisms.

Final Decision – Writ Petition Disposed of with Directions – The Court issued binding directions to all States, UTs, and the Union of India to implement the provisions of the 1954 Act effectively – Compliance reports to be filed by end of June 2025 – Petition to be listed for compliance monitoring on 14th May 2025.
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 NI Act - Suppression of Material Facts by Complainant – Complaint Quashed – Respondent filed complaint without disclosing crucial letters from accused requesting documents to respond to statutory notice – SC held: Suppression of relevant facts amounts to abuse of legal process – Complaint and cognizance quashed [Paras 11, 18–22].

NI Act – Dishonour of Security Cheque – Presumption Under Section

139 – Rebuttable Only in Trial – However, Court Held Complaint Itself Vitiated – Appellant had challenged liability and demanded documents before reply – Complainant’s omission to acknowledge such demand in complaint fatal to maintainability [Paras 6–7, 13–14, 21].

Complaint Procedure – Duty of Magistrate Under Section 200 CrPC – Application of Judicial Mind Required – Magistrate failed to consider suppressed correspondence – Supreme Court emphasized importance of truthful disclosures when invoking criminal law [Paras 9–10, 19].

Clean Hands Doctrine – Litigant Suppressing Truth Can’t Seek Relief – Citing S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, SC reiterated: Complaint founded on concealment of key facts deserves to be thrown out at threshold [Paras 11, 21].

Statutory Notice – Reasonable Opportunity to Respond – Non-Supply of Documents – Accused Cannot Be Penalized – Appellant explicitly reserved right to reply pending receipt of documents – Filing of complaint without fulfilling this obligation unjustified [Paras 14–17, 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order dated 18.12.2023 set aside – Criminal Case No. 648/2016 and cognizance order dated 02.03.2017 quashed – Liberty granted to complainant to seek civil remedy for recovery, if any [Paras 22–24].