Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Mere cruelty or harassment without proof of direct or indirect instigation not sufficient – Letters proved dowry demand and cruelty – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Convictions under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 Dowry Prohibition Act upheld – Sentence under DP Act reduced to three years – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 10–15].

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 306, 107, and 109 – Abetment of Suicide – Meaning of “Instigation” – Proof and Mental Element – Abetment involves active mental process of instigating, provoking, or aiding commission of suicide – Mere cruelty or harassment without proof of direct or indirect incitement not sufficient to attract Section 306 IPC – Courts must be cautious in cases of domestic discord; hypersensitivity of victim cannot justify conviction – Held: No material to show any direct instigation or aiding by appellant – Conviction under Section 306 IPC unsustainable [Paras 8–13].

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A – Cruelty – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 3 – Demand for Dowry – Evidence including letters written by accused demanding ₹40,000 for purchase of house established persistent harassment and dowry demand – Such conduct constitutes cruelty within meaning of Section 498A IPC and offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Convictions under these provisions sustained – However, sentence under Section 3 of the Act reduced from five years to three years [Paras 3, 14–15].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 209 – Commitment of Case – Properly invoked where offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act were triable exclusively by Sessions Court – No procedural infirmity in trial process [Para 3].

Judicial Approach – Abetment of Suicide – Evaluation of Evidence – Courts must carefully assess whether cruelty in domestic setting was of such nature as to induce suicide – Mere marital discord or ordinary domestic friction not sufficient – Reference made to State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418; Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797; Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 5097; Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 2108 [Paras 10–13].

Decision: Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Convictions under Section 498A IPC and Section 3 Dowry Prohibition Act upheld – Sentence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act reduced to three years – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 14–15].

Judicial Service – Departmental Proceedings – Natural Justice – Bias – Appellant, a Judicial Officer, was dismissed from service on recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court of Gujarat based on inquiry findings – Same judge who was a member of that Disciplinary Committee also later sat on the bench hearing the appellant’s writ petition challenging his dismissal – Held: Impermissible – Participation of a judge in adjudication of a matter in which he had earlier acted in an administrative or disciplinary capacity creates a reasonable apprehension of bias – Order of High Court set aside – Matter remitted for fresh consideration by a different bench [Paras 6–10].

Principles of Natural Justice – Nemo judex in causa sua – Person cannot be a judge in his own cause – Test is not actual bias but reasonable likelihood of bias – Justice must not only be done but also appear to be done – Applied from Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 SCC 417 [Paras 9–10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned order of Gujarat High Court set aside – Case remitted to High Court for fresh decision in accordance with law [Para 10].

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]