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].

Consumer Law – Delay in Flat Possession – Refund with 9% Interest Upheld – Not 15% – Respondent was allotted a flat in 2010 but possession delayed despite full payment – Supreme Court upheld NCDRC’s direction for refund with 9% p.a. interest – Held: High Court’s enhancement to 15% excessive and unjustified – Refund must be reasonable, not punitive [Paras 4–8, 14].

Article 227 Jurisdiction – High Court Should Not Interfere Lightly – NCDRC Findings

Were Reasoned – Supreme Court found no exceptional circumstances justifying High Court’s interference with NCDRC’s well-balanced order – Article 227 cannot be invoked to re-weigh evidence unless perverse error exists [Paras 12–14].

Compensation – Reduced from ₹10 Lakhs to ₹7.5 Lakhs – Public Authority

Consideration – Respondent claimed ₹10 Lakhs for harassment – SC reduced to ₹7.5 Lakhs noting MHADA is a State instrumentality and no personal malice involved – Balanced compensation awarded [Para 15].

Principle – Refund over Possession – Homebuyer Cannot Be Compelled to Accept Flat – Following Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank, SC held that inordinate delay justifies refund with interest – Delivery after long delay unacceptable to consumer rights [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – High Court’s order enhancing interest to 15% p.a. set aside – NCDRC’s order granting 9% interest restored – Compensation modified from  ₹10 Lakhs to ₹7.5 Lakhs – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 14–15].

Anticipatory Bail – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Alleged Caste Slur Not in Public View – Bail Granted – FIR alleged that the appellant insulted the complainant with caste-based remarks and orchestrated an abduction conspiracy – Supreme Court noted absence of public view element necessary to invoke SC/ST Act provisions under Sections 3(1)® and 3(1)(s) – Also observed that the appellant’s involvement was inferential, not direct – Held: Anticipatory bail granted following principles in Prathvi Raj Chauhan and Shajan Skaria [Paras 3-5, 7-8].

Temple Dispute – Longstanding Association Between Parties – Civil Suits Filed – Alleged Abduction Emerged from Property Conflict – FIR indicated that appellant and complainant had been trustees of a temple trust since 2012 and fell into dispute from 2017, leading to multiple civil litigations – Held: Background reinforces inference-based allegations and merits protection from arrest [Paras 6-7].

Bail Direction – No Comment on Merits – Observations Not to Affect Trial – Held: Bail order not to influence trial proceedings – Any opinion herein shall not affect merits or final decision in the criminal case [Para 8].

NDPS Act – Non-compliance with Sections 42 and 52A – Conviction Set Aside – The appellants were convicted for possession of 600 kg of ganja under Section 8© read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act – The Court found serious procedural lapses, including improper sealing, storage, and delay in producing contraband before the court – Investigating officer failed to comply with Standing Order No. 1/89 – Held: Substantial compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act was absent – Benefit of doubt extended to the appellants leading to acquittal [Paras 11-15].

Appellate Duty – High Court failed to reappreciate evidence – Cryptic judgment set aside – The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to discharge its duty as a first appellate court by not properly analyzing the evidence and overlooking procedural violations which were pivotal to the case – The omission rendered the appellate order unsustainable [Paras 5, 9, 15].

Principle of Parity – Acquittal of similarly placed co-accused (A-2 and A-8) ignored – The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s refusal to extend benefit of doubt to remaining appellants despite acquittal of A-2 and A-8 on the same evidence was unjustified – Held: All accused deserved parity in benefit of doubt [Para 6].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentences set aside – The Supreme Court found that prosecution failed to prove that non-compliance with Section 52A and Standing Order No. 1/89 did not prejudice the accused – Appellants ordered to be released unless required in other cases [Paras 15-17].

Service Jurisprudence – Transfer on Medical Grounds – Nature of Request – Not Public Interest – The respondent sought change of cadre from Staff Nurse to First Division Assistant due to bronchitis, and consented to be placed junior-most in the new cadre – Held: The transfer was at the employee’s request and not in public interest; seniority to be reckoned from the date of transfer and not original appointment – Change of cadre does not alter this rule [Paras 5-7, 2224].

Interpretation of Service Rules – Rule 16(a)(iii), 1977 Rules – Voluntary Consent to Lower Post – Valid – Rule 16 permits appointment of a permanently incapacitated employee to a lower post only with consent – Such consent was expressly given by the respondent – No violation of rules in fixing her seniority accordingly [Paras 9-13].

Seniority Principles – Rule 6, 1957 Rules – Effect of Transfer at Employee's Request – Seniority Not Carried – Transfer made on request places employee below all existing employees in the new cadre – Respondent not entitled to claim seniority from original post of Staff Nurse [Paras 14-20, 23.2].

Distinction in Transfer Types – Public Interest vs. Personal Request – Essential to Determine Seniority Impact – Transfers in public interest retain seniority; those at personal request do not – Respondent’s transfer due to medical reasons, though compassionate, was not administrative exigency – Cannot claim benefit of seniority retention [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of Tribunal and High Court Set

Aside – Seniority of respondent to be reckoned from 19.04.1989, date of appointment as First Division Assistant, and not from 05.01.1979 as Staff Nurse [Paras 24-25].

Consumer Protection – Loan Recall Notice – Allegation of Unfair Trade Practice – Settlement Finalized – Borrowers challenged the recall of home loans by the bank before NCDRC which rejected the complaints – Supreme Court facilitated a tripartite settlement between borrowers, builder, and bank involving waiver of charges, pre-EMI concessions, and staggered payments – Held: Settlement recorded and enforced through Court orders, with all parties complying [Paras 1-4].

Pre-EMI Payment Adjustment – Builder’s Liability – Builder Directed to Bear 50% – Borrowers had paid pre-EMI due to builder’s default – Builder agreed to reimburse 50% of the pre-EMI to borrowers, and balance 5% of the sale consideration to be paid by borrowers within stipulated time – Held: Compliance ensured and builder to issue acknowledgment of payment [Paras 3-7].

Banking Record Rectification – Use of Term ‘Settlement’ – Borrowers Requested Modification – Borrowers sought substitution of term ‘settlement’ with ‘repaid’ in loan closure record to avoid impact on creditworthiness – Held: Bank directed to amend records accordingly [Para 6(i)].

Possession and Completion – Builder’s Responsibility – Possession with Completion by Deadline – Builder undertook to complete remaining construction and handover possession by 31.03.2025 – Held: Direction issued to ensure compliance [Para 6(ii)].

Litigation Closure – Proceedings Before RERA and DRT – Directed to be Withdrawn – All pending proceedings initiated by or against the parties including those before RERA and DRT to be withdrawn – Held: Appeals finally disposed with complete quietus to litigation [Paras 8-9].

Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Sudden Provocation – Conviction Modified – Altercation Led to Single Blow – Appellant, involved in a road rage incident, delivered a single blow with an iron rod to the deceased during a spontaneous altercation – Supreme Court held there was no premeditation or intention to kill – Conviction modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to 7 years’ RI [Paras 2–8].

Nature of Injury – Vital Part Hit – Death Resulted – Still Not Murder – Although the injury was inflicted on the head, the vital part, the act was held to be under sudden provocation during an unarmed confrontation – Intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death attracted, but not intention to kill – Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC applied [Paras 6–8].

Aggression by Deceased Party – Right to Self-Control Lost – Exception to Murder Attracted – Deceased and his companions had chased and confronted the accused after a traffic incident – Appellant’s reaction was spontaneous under provocation – Held: Case falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder [Paras 6–7].

Evidence – Confessional Recovery – Admitted – Iron rod recovered based on Section 27 confession – Postmortem confirmed homicide – Factual conviction upheld; only legal classification altered [Paras 5–6].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I – Sentence reduced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment – Fine and default sentence upheld – Appellant to surrender within 2 months if not already served sentence [Para 8].

Property Law – Validity of Court Auction vs. Later Will – Court Auction Prevails – Title Vested with Auction Purchaser – Supreme Court affirmed that property purchased by late Padmini Chandrasekaran via court auction in 1962 and registered sale deed in 1963 vested her with absolute title – Later will dated 30.05.1962 executed by original owner (Somasundaram) in favour of his adopted son (Defendant No.1) could not override the completed court sale – Will probated in 1966 was rendered ineffective vis-à-vis the property already alienated [Paras 3–6, 11, 19].

Executor's Capacity – Moulding of Relief to Avoid Multiple Litigations – Permissible – Although the Trust (plaintiff) was found not entitled to the property directly, the High Court moulded relief in favour of executor (Dr. H.B.N. Shetty) to enforce the bequest made in favour of a private beneficiary (Vinayagamurthy) – Held: Moulding of relief was justified in peculiar circumstances to avoid a third round of litigation; such relief is within judicial discretion and not arbitrary [Paras 12, 20–24].

Moulding of Relief – Legal Scope and Limits – Explained – Supreme Court clarified that courts may mould relief to serve complete justice and prevent multiplicity of proceedings, especially when claims are substantiated in trial but technical description of plaintiff impedes direct relief – However, such power must not prejudice or surprise defendants – In this case, moulding was proper and backed by full trial findings [Paras 20–24].

Possession Follows Title – Adverse Possession Not Made Out – The land in dispute was vacant; hence possession follows title – Defendants’ claim of adverse possession dismissed as untenable in law – Court reiterated that possession cannot be adverse unless clearly hostile and established over statutory period [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decrees of the High Court upheld – Sale deeds dated 24.02.1992 in favour of Appellants (Defendant Nos. 3 to 6) declared void – Relief validly moulded in favour of executor to give effect to bequest – Costs of ₹1,00,000 payable to Madras High Court Legal Aid Services Authority within four weeks [Paras 25–26].

Motor Accident Claim – Bilateral Amputation – Compensation Enhanced – Appeal Allowed – Appellant, a B.D.O., lost both legs in a road accident while riding pillion – Tribunal awarded ₹7.5 lakhs; High Court upheld the award after attributing contributory negligence to the scooter driver – Supreme Court held that the finding of contributory negligence was erroneous and unsupported by evidence – Full liability of ₹16 lakhs directed to be paid by insurer [Paras 2–14, 17–18].

Negligence – No Contributory Negligence Proven – Learner’s Licence Not Conclusive – Driver’s licence status alone cannot establish negligence – High Court’s finding that scooter driver had better visibility and B.D.O. abused his authority was held speculative and unsubstantiated – Supreme Court found evidence clearly established trailer driver's negligence as sole cause of accident [Paras 8–13].

Compensation – Prosthetics, Attendant, Medical Expenses – Future Cost Recognised – Court accepted that the cost of prosthetics, its wear and tear, medical expenses, and need for a personal attendant justified awarding full claim – ₹16 lakhs compensation granted under composite heads including ₹9 lakhs for medical/prosthetics and ₹5 lakhs for disability and loss of amenities [Paras 15–16].

Legal Principle – Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probability in Tort – Court reiterated that motor accident claims are not adversarial and rely on preponderance of evidence – Surmises or speculative reasoning not sufficient to deny compensation [Paras 11–12].

Interest – 7% Simple Interest from Date of Award – ₹25,000 under Section 140 to be Adjusted – Insurance company directed to compute and deposit full amount within two months via RTGS/NEFT on receiving bank details from appellant [Paras 17–18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Finding of contributory negligence set aside – Full compensation of ₹16,00,000 awarded with 7% simple interest from date of award – Amount under Section 140 to be deducted – Directions issued for timely disbursal by insurance company [Paras 17–18].