Criminal Law – Quashing – Section 419, 420, 467,468,471 of the IPC - Criminal Complaint – Allegation of Forged Will – Quashing Justified – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Appellants, daughters-in-law of the deceased, inherited estate via a will dated 23.12.1993 – Sale deed was executed by one son after the testator’s death – Complainant filed complaint under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC seven years after mutation and amid pending civil suit – Held: Allegations failed to disclose any offence – Proceedings amounted to harassment and were filed with mala fide intent – Complaint quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 3.1–3.11, 6.1, 8.1, 8.3–8.9, 9–10].

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of FIR – Alleged cheating and breach of trust arising out of property transaction – FIR Quashed – The appellants challenged the registration of FIR and cognizance taken under Sections 406, 420, and 120B IPC in relation to a 2015 Agreement to Sell and GPA regarding land in Bhoopasandra Village, Bengaluru – The Court found that the dispute was purely civil in nature with no elements of entrustment or dishonest inducement at inception – Further, it held that possession was never transferred, and the complainant's own pleadings defeated the ingredients of the offences alleged – The Court quashed the FIR, chargesheet, and all proceedings, while also extending the benefit to a non-appealing co-accused – Serious observations were made against the BDA and collusive conduct in de-notification of acquired land – Civil suit allowed to proceed – No third-party rights to be created until related SLP is decided [Paras 1, 4, 19-20, 33-35, 39-41, 47-60].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Sections 406 and 420 IPC – No Entrustment or Dishonest Inducement – FIR Quashed – The Court held that the subject property belonged to the appellants and no entrustment or dishonest inducement at inception was evident from the FIR or case records – Thus, ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC were not satisfied – FIR and cognizance quashed [Paras 39-41].

Civil vs Criminal Proceedings – Overlapping Remedies – Civil Suit Pending – Criminal Case Abuse of Process – FIR Quashed – The Court held that although civil and criminal proceedings may co-exist, absence of criminal intent in this case, coupled with pending civil suit, rendered continuation of criminal case an abuse of process – FIR and chargesheet quashed [Paras 42-43].

Procedural Compliance – Priyanka Srivastava Guidelines – Filing of Affidavit – Defect Curable if Complied Pre-referral – Held: Although filing of affidavit is mandatory before referral under Section 156(3) CrPC, the complainant filed the affidavit before the Magistrate’s referral – Defect treated as curable and not fatal – Magistrate’s referral upheld [Paras 44-45].

Conspiracy Allegations – Section 120B IPC – No Illegal Agreement or Criminal Design – FIR Quashed – The Court held that no material existed to show that appellants had entered into any illegal agreement or shared criminal intent to deceive the complainant – Section 120B IPC not attracted [Para 38].

Suo Motu Relief – Non-Appellant Co-Accused – Parity Applied – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Though co-accused Vidyasree V.S. did not file appeal, Court extended benefit of quashing as all accused stood on same footing – Suo motu relief granted to serve justice [Para 48].

Statutory Malfeasance – BDA De-Notification – Collusive Conduct Observed – Matter Deferred – Serious irregularities in land acquisition, de-notification, and withdrawal of appeals by BDA noted by Court – Although inclined to exercise powers under Article 142, Court deferred to related pending SLP filed by BDA – Registry directed to tag this judgment to pending SLP – Status quo to be maintained [Paras 50-60].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – FIR, Chargesheet and Cognizance Order Quashed - The Court quashed the FIR, chargesheet dated 28.08.2024 and the order taking cognizance dated 30.08.2024 – Civil suit may continue – No third-party rights to be created until further orders in related SLP [Paras 47, 60].

Constitutional Law – Disqualification of MLAs – Inaction by Speaker – Speaker failed to act on disqualification petitions for over seven months despite constitutional mandate under Tenth Schedule – Appellants (MLAs) filed writ petitions seeking time-bound directions – Single Judge directed Speaker to fix schedule of hearings – Division Bench set aside that order – Supreme Court held that Speaker acts as a Tribunal while adjudicating disqualification and is amenable to judicial review under Articles 136, 226, 227 – Quia Timet bar does not prevent courts from issuing directions ensuring timely disposal of petitions [Paras 1, 3.6, 3.8, 3.9, 3.12, 4–11, 25–36, 49–60, 75–96].

Constitutional Functionaries – Conduct of Speaker – Delay in initiating proceedings until Supreme Court proceedings were initiated – Notices issued by Speaker only after cases were filed/heard in Court – Supreme Court found Speaker had failed to act expeditiously, frustrating purpose of the Tenth Schedule – Parliament entrusted Speaker with role for swift justice, but repeated inaction across cases undermines this trust – Court questions whether legislative mechanism is still effective [Paras 91–94].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Court distinguished between interference with Speaker’s powers vs. judicial review in aid of constitutional objectives – Held that judicial review is permissible when Speaker fails to discharge duties under Tenth Schedule – Speaker does not enjoy immunity under Articles 122/212 when acting as tribunal – Failure to decide disqualification petitions can be reviewed and remedied [Paras 33–36, 81–84, 95–100].

Precedents – Applied Keisham Meghachandra Singh and Rajendra Singh Rana – Upheld view that Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a “reasonable period” – “Three months” held as reasonable outer limit unless exceptional circumstances exist – Refused respondents’ arguments relying on pending reference in S.A. Sampath Kumar as already addressed in later judgments [Paras 50–60, 77–79, 87–89].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Division Bench set aside – Speaker directed to decide pending disqualification petitions within three months – Any protraction by MLAs to be met with adverse inference by Speaker [Paras 101–102].

Family Law - Transfer Petition – Custody Proceedings – Welfare of Minor – Transfer Allowed – Petitioner-wife sought transfer of proceedings filed by husband under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act for custody of six-month-old child from Jalpaiguri to Dehradun – Court held that compelling the mother to travel with a breast-feeding child would result in grave hardship – Transfer granted in the interest of justice and welfare of the child [Paras 1, 7, 8].

Domestic Violence Allegations – Pending Criminal Proceedings – Relevant Factor – The petitioner had filed complaints against the respondent for harassment and dowry-related abuse – FIR registered under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act – Court took note of pendency of criminal case as relevant background while assessing motive and hardship in custody litigation [Paras 2, 3, 6].

Maintenance – Interim Maintenance Ordered – Conditional Right to Defend – Court directed Family Court, Dehradun to determine interim maintenance for the petitioner and child within one month – Respondent-husband permitted to contest custody petition only upon payment of arrears and monthly compliance – Non-payment to result in dismissal for non-prosecution [Paras 9, 10, 11].

Judicial Discretion – Power Under Article 142 – Transfer Jurisdiction – Court exercised its plenary powers to balance competing interests and ensure procedural justice – Directions issued to secure child’s welfare and prevent vexatious litigation – Petition allowed [Para 7–11].

Final Order – Transfer Petition Allowed – Proceedings titled “Magnanil Goswami v. Kajal Sharma” pending before District Judge, Jalpaiguri transferred to Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun – All interlocutory applications also disposed of [Paras 8, 12].

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of FIR – Protest Rally and Dharna – FIR Quashed – Appellants challenged the criminal proceedings initiated for participating in a peaceful student rally in 2019 without prior permission, during the election Model Code of Conduct – The FIR alleged public nuisance and obstruction under IPC and Police Act – The Court found no ingredients of the alleged offences were made out and quashed the FIR, chargesheet, and trial proceedings – Held: The appellants were exercising their fundamental right to protest and no case was made for continuing prosecution [Paras 1-6, 13-21].

Bhajan Lal Principles – Application to Section 482 CrPC – No Offence Made Out – FIR Quashed – The Court applied the Bhajan Lal guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – Held: Even if allegations are accepted as true, they do not disclose any offence – Quashing justified under sub-clauses (1), (2), and (3) of Para 102 of Bhajan Lal case [Paras 13, 20].

Fundamental Rights – Peaceful Protest – Public Assembly without Arms – No Criminal Liability – Prosecution Misconceived – The protest was peaceful and without arms – No material suggested undue influence at elections, obstruction of traffic, or public nuisance as defined under IPC or Police Act – Held: Participation in peaceful protests is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and (b); no offence made out [Paras 10, 14, 18].

Failure to Make Out Ingredients of Offence – Sections 290, 341, 171F IPC – Allegations Inadequate – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Court observed that FIR and chargesheet lacked essential ingredients for the alleged offences – No act of wrongful restraint, undue electoral influence, or nuisance was demonstrated – FIR and C.C. No.1015/2021 quashed [Paras 16-19].

High Court's Error – Refusal to Quash – Misapplication of Law – Set Aside – The High Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 CrPC despite lack of prima facie offence – Supreme Court found this erroneous and an abuse of process – Held: High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction to secure ends of justice [Para 19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – FIR, Chargesheet and Proceedings Quashed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and quashed FIR No.102/2019, Chargesheet dated 03.06.2020 and proceedings in C.C. No.1015/2021 pending before the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati – Held: Continuation of prosecution was neither expedient nor in the interest of justice [Para 21].

Civil Suit – Declaration & Injunction – Auction Purchase of Municipal Plot – High Court’s Reversal Set Aside – Appellant claimed ownership of plot No. 394 purchased in 1977 auction—Trial and first appellate courts decreed suit based on certified copies of auction records and adverse inference against municipal council for non-production of originals—High Court reversed, holding plaintiff failed to prove purchase—Held: Certified copies issued under Section 376 Karnataka Municipalities Act have same evidentiary value as originals; municipal body’s resolution cancelling registered sale certificate illegal—Non-production of records invited adverse inference—High Court’s finding perverse; trial court decree restored [Paras 26-34].

Service Law – Retirement Age – Applicability of State Notification – Appellant denied benefit of enhanced retirement age from 60 to 65 years under West Bengal Government’s Notification dated 24.02.2021 on ground that 10-year teaching experience was not in a State-aided institution within West Bengal – University and State contended that ‘any State-aided University or College’ in Notification must be interpreted per amended definitions under West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 – Supreme Court held such interpretation arbitrary and discriminatory – Held: No justification to restrict past teaching experience to within West Bengal when candidate had served 14 years post-selection based on Assam experience – Artificial classification violative of Article 14 [Paras 2-3, 5-6, 8, 14, 19-21, 24]

Statutory Interpretation – Contextual Meaning – Word ‘any’ in Notification – Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held ‘any’ must be confined to universities under West Bengal Act per statutory definitions – Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing contextual interpretation – Held: Notification intended only to distinguish State-aided from private institutions, not to exclude teaching experience outside the State – Use of ‘any’ inclusive in nature – Context, object, and purpose must guide interpretation of subordinate legislation [Paras 16-18, 26-27]

Equality and Non-discrimination – Parochial Executive Action – Exclusion of candidates with teaching experience outside West Bengal held discriminatory and contrary to constitutional principles – Court emphasized that fraternity and unity are undermined by such parochial policies – Cited precedents on artificial classifications lacking rational nexus [Paras 3.1, 19-24]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment dated 13.12.2023 set aside – Notification dated 28.06.2023 rejecting retirement age extension quashed – Appellant entitled to benefit of 24.02.2021 Notification – Costs of Rs. 50,000 awarded [Paras 28-29]

Criminal Law - Murder of Wife – Sole Testimony of Child Witness – Section 302 IPC – Conviction Upheld – The accused was convicted by the trial court for murdering his wife by inflicting head injuries—Case rested substantially on the testimony of his 9-year-old daughter (PW-3), an eyewitness who was sleeping beside the deceased—She saw her father covering the deceased with a bedsheet and forbidding her to see the body; the accused then absconded—Child witness’s testimony found natural, consistent, and corroborated by landlord (PW-1) and medical evidence—Bloodstains on accused’s shirt matched deceased’s blood group—Defence of false implication rejected—Held: Burden under Section 106 Evidence Act not discharged; conviction and life sentence affirmed—Appeal dismissed, bail cancelled, and accused directed to surrender [Paras 5-16].

Arbitration Law  – Statutory Forum vs Contractual Clause – Exclusive Jurisdiction of Statutory Tribunal Upheld – The appellant, a private tollway company, initiated arbitration under Clause 44.3.1 of a Concession Agreement invoking the 1996 Act and ICADR Rules, after withdrawing a reference before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal without liberty – The High Court quashed the arbitral proceedings, holding the dispute fell exclusively within the statutory regime of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 – Supreme Court upheld this view, holding that the contract was a ‘works contract’, the claims were ascertained, and the 1983 Act provided an overriding statutory mechanism barring recourse to arbitration under the 1996 Act – The Court allowed the appellant to seek revival of the earlier withdrawn petition before the Tribunal [Paras 1–3, 11–18].

Maintainability of Writ – Challenge by State Entity Against Private Party – Writ Held Maintainable – The Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of the writ petition filed by MPRDC under Article 226 challenging arbitration proceedings initiated by a private company – Held: Since the dispute involved the public function of road development and the legality of invoking arbitration despite a statutory dispute resolution mechanism, the writ involved a public law element and was maintainable [Paras 8-8.4].

Works Contract – Applicability of Statutory Arbitration Tribunal – Arbitration Clause in Concession Agreement Held Inoperative – The appellant sought arbitration under the 1996 Act as per Clause 44.3.1 of the Concession Agreement – Held: The Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the 1983 Act has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising out of works contracts involving the State – Private arbitration proceedings are non est in law [Paras 9–11.10].

Quantified Claims – Tribunal Jurisdiction Valid – Claims Held Ascertained – The appellant argued its claims were not “ascertained” and hence outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction – Held: The claims totaling Rs. 280.1566 crores were clearly quantified and therefore fall within the ambit of “dispute” under Section 2(1)(d) of the 1983 Act, even post-amendment [Paras 11.2–11.3].

Doctrine of Election – Parallel Proceedings Not Permissible – Appellant Estopped – The appellant initially approached the statutory Tribunal, later withdrew without liberty, and initiated private arbitration – Held: This conduct violates the doctrine of election and amounts to forum shopping; Clause 44.3.1 cannot override the 1983 Act [Paras 12–13.1].

Limitation and Estoppel – Withdrawal Without Liberty Bars Re-agitation – The appellant withdrew its petition without permission under Rule 53(2), attracting the bar under Rule 53(3)(b) – Held: The appellant is precluded from raising the same claims before any forum including ICADR – However, Court permitted recall of the withdrawal order for justice [Paras 17–17.1].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Arbitration Under 1996 Act Quashed – Madhya Pradesh Tribunal Retains Exclusive Jurisdiction – The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order quashing arbitration initiated under the 1996 Act – Directed the appellant to apply for revival of Reference Petition No. 61 of 2018 before the Tribunal, to be considered and decided within four months [Paras 16–18].