Criminal Law - Bribery – Demand and Acceptance – Conviction Restored - Accused, a Village Accountant, was caught in a trap accepting ₹500 as part of a ₹1500 bribe to process a mutation entry – Trial Court convicted, but High Court reversed on grounds of inconsistencies – Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies do not negate credible prosecution evidence – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) PC Act restored [Paras 12–14, 23–25].

Presumption Under Section 20 PC Act – Properly Invoked – Recovery Corroborated - Bribe amount recovered from accused’s pocket, with phenolphthalein test confirming contact – Section 20 presumption rightly applied – Defence plea of money being “forcibly put” rejected based on credible testimony of complainant (PW1) and shadow witness (PW2) [Paras 8–10, 13, 16].

Witness Credibility – Minor Inconsistencies Not Fatal – High Court Erred - Supreme Court held that minor contradictions due to 10-year delay in trial cannot override consistent narrative of PW1 and PW2 regarding demand and acceptance of bribe – High Court gave undue weight to irrelevant discrepancies and ignored reliable ocular and documentary evidence [Paras 14–18, 21–22].

Sanction for Prosecution – Properly Granted – Not Disputed - Though not argued before High Court, Trial Court had correctly appreciated sanction evidence – Conviction not vitiated on this ground [Para 20].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Acquittal Set Aside – Accused to Surrender - Trial Court’s conviction and sentence of 1 year RI and fine of ₹500 each under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) restored – Accused directed to surrender within two weeks [Paras 25–26].

Criminal Law – Murder - Criminal Conspiracy – Political Motive and Presence Established – Conviction Upheld - Petitioner (A6), a politically influential municipal councillor, was proven to have instigated a fatal mob attack following public altercations – Held: Motive established through multiple witnesses; presence at scene and exhortation to kill corroborated – Conspiracy proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 5–9, 13–15, 18].

Evidence – Omission in Initial Statements – Bias in Investigation – Later Statements Validated - Though A6 was not initially named, evidence revealed that investigating officers deliberately excluded his name – Statements under Section 164 CrPC recorded at victims’ request confirmed his role – High Court rightly relied on judicially recorded depositions over biased police record [Paras 14–15].

Parity with Acquitted Co-Accused – Differentiation Justified – Distinct Role Proved - A6’s role not identical to that of A5 who was acquitted – A6 exhorted the assailants and had clear prior involvement; A5’s presence explained by residence proximity – Held: Conviction of A6 does not violate principle of parity [Para 12–14].

Conspiracy – Circumstantial and Corroborative Evidence Sufficient – Test of Common Intention Met - Court reaffirmed that conspiracy can be inferred from conduct and presence – A6’s instigation and motive from earlier incidents linked to fatal attack – Held: Knowledge that act could result in death imputable under Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 16–19].

Decision – Special Leave Petition Dismissed – No Interference with Conviction - Supreme Court upheld High Court’s findings on conviction and sentence under Sections 304 Part II, 450, and allied offences – SLP dismissed with all pending applications disposed of [Paras 19–20].

Civil Law - Cluster Redevelopment – MHADA Authority on Freehold Land – Upheld – No Vested Right with Private Developer - MHADA's redevelopment initiative on freehold land, supported by majority of housing societies, held valid under Regulation 33(9) DCPR – Private developer’s unregistered agreements with some residents do not confer enforceable rights – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12–15, 20–21].

Maintainability – Article 226 Petition by Private Developer – Not Maintainable – Civil Remedy Available - Appellant's plea for writ relief rejected as disputes with residents were contractual in nature – Supreme Court held civil court is the proper forum for enforcement of such rights, if any – Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to block MHADA’s public development scheme [Paras 6, 17, 19].

Delay and Inaction – Failure to Commence Project – Public Interest Favoured - Developer had not started any construction since 2012 despite agreements – Only partial corpus funds paid to few residents – Court accepted that delay led residents and societies to support MHADA-led redevelopment in public interest [Paras 14, 16, 18].

Regulation 33(9) – Joint Development with Societies Permitted – Government Misdescription of Title Irrelevant - Court held that MHADA may partner with cooperative housing societies on freehold land – Erroneous description of land as “government land” in official resolution immaterial – Authority under DCPR sufficient [Paras 12–15].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Appellants Lacked Locus Standi - Supreme Court upheld High Court’s rejection of the writ petition – Held: Appellants had no legal basis or standing to challenge MHADA’s e-tender when majority societies supported it and no valid registered contracts existed [Paras 19–21].

Employment Law - Reservation – Definition of Ex-Serviceman – IMNS Personnel Covered – Eligibility Recognized - The Court interpreted Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982 to include persons who served in the Indian Military Nursing Service (IMNS) – Held: IMNS is part of the Armed Forces of the Union as per the MNS Ordinance, 1943 – Respondent No. 4, having completed her short service commission and received gratuity, is entitled to be treated as an “ex-serviceman” under Clause (iv) of Rule 2(c) [Paras 10–18].

Interpretation of State Rules – Central Rules Inapplicable – Punjab Rules Govern Recruitment - The Court held that Central Rules, 1979 do not apply to state-level recruitment under Article 309 – Eligibility must be assessed under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 framed by the State Government [Paras 6–9].

Constitutional Powers – Article 309 – State Entitled to Frame Rules – Valid Exercise of Power - Punjab Rules, 1982 being framed under Article 309 are binding and take precedence in state recruitments – Clarifications issued by the Kendriya Sainik Board cannot override statutory rules [Paras 9, 19].

Equitable Considerations – Existing Appointment Not to be Disturbed – Co-Existence Allowed - Appellant, a validly appointed ex-serviceman, shall continue in service – Respondent No. 4, if otherwise eligible and meritorious, shall also be appointed but without back wages – Appointments to co-exist without disturbing the appellant’s service [Paras 21–22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court Order Upheld - The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s ruling in favor of respondent No. 4’s eligibility and directed her appointment while protecting the appellant’s current employment status [Paras 23–24].

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction - Agreement to Sell – Maintainability - No Right Against Third Party – Suit Barred – Rejection of Plaint Upheld - The respondents filed a suit for injunction based on an agreement to sell with third parties, without impleading the actual vendors or establishing title – Held: An agreement to sell does not create any right in property as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act – Plaint fails to disclose cause of action and is barred in law – Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC justified [Paras 13–16].

Champertous and Vexatious Litigation – No Locus Without Title – Suit Held Abuse of Process - Respondents were not in possession and had no registered title – The plaint was a product of clever drafting to create an illusion of right – Held: Litigation was champertous, inequitable, and lacking bonafide – Court cautioned against speculative suits based on dubious agreements to sell [Paras 15.2.1–15.2.5, 18].

Section 53A TPA – Protection Limited to Vendor–Vendee – Not Enforceable Against Third Parties - Court held that doctrine of part performance under Section 53A only protects possession against transferor, not third parties claiming independent title – Respondents had no privity with appellant – Suit not maintainable [Paras 15.1–15.2.1].

Cash Transactions – Violation of Income Tax Law – Directions Issued - Suit claim included cash payment of ₹75 lakhs in violation of Section 269ST of Income Tax Act – Held: Courts must inform Income Tax Department when cash transactions of ₹2 lakhs or more are pleaded – Detailed compliance directions issued to High Courts, Sub-Registrars, and Tax Officers [Paras 18.1, 31–32].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Suit Rejected – Directions for Systemic Enforcement - Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside High Court and Trial Court orders, and rejected the plaint in O.S. No. 25968 of 2018 – Directions issued for audit and enforcement by judiciary and tax authorities – Costs not imposed but respondents warned against future abuse [Paras 19–21].

Criminal Law  –  Res Judicata in Criminal Law – Quashing Allowed - Allegations of cheating under Section 420 IPC were found to be a reiteration of the defence already raised and rejected in earlier proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act – The Court held that the prior adjudication conclusively settled the issue of liability, applying the doctrine of res judicata in criminal matters – Held: Fresh prosecution based on same facts is impermissible [Paras 10–20].

Company Liability – Prosecution Without Arraigning Company – Proceedings Quashed - Appellant, a Managing Director, was prosecuted without making the company an accused – The Court reiterated that a company must be arraigned for offences based on company actions when vicarious liability is alleged – Held: In absence of the company being prosecuted, criminal proceedings against the individual director are not maintainable [Paras 21–30].

Magistrate's Order – Non-Application of Mind – Summoning Order Quashed - The impugned summoning order did not contain reasoning or reference to specific allegations against the appellant individually – Held: Magistrate must record satisfaction after due application of mind before summoning – Mere managerial designation insufficient to attract liability [Paras 7, 23].

Abuse of Process – Vexatious Counterblast to Concluded Proceedings – Quashing Justified - The FIR against the appellant was registered after conclusion of 138 NI Act proceedings and compromise in civil suit – Held: Criminal law cannot be used to settle civil or business disputes already adjudicated – Appeal allowed, proceedings quashed [Paras 5, 24–25].

Motor Accident Claim – Contributory Negligence – Sole Fault of Truck Driver – High Court Judgment Affirmed - Tribunal had found 50% contributory negligence by deceased biker – High Court, based on eyewitness and evidence, found sole negligence on part of truck driver – Supreme Court upheld this view as reasonable and consistent with record [Paras 1, 4–6].

Credibility of Evidence – Eyewitness vs. Interested Witness – Eyewitness Found Reliable - Eyewitness PW3, who followed the deceased on a separate bike, provided consistent, credible account of truck approaching wrong side – Contradictions in testimony of truck driver (RW1) and Investigating Officer (RW3) noted and rejected by Court [Paras 3–5].

Vicarious Liability – Employer Held Liable – Insurer Directed to Indemnify - Since negligence of truck driver was established, insurer was held liable to indemnify the owner/employer – Reaffirmation of principle of vicarious liability in motor accident cases [Para 6].

Assessment of Damages – Enhancement Not Challenged – No Interference Made - Petitioner did not contest the quantum of compensation – Supreme Court held enhancement by High Court proper and declined to interfere [Para 6].

Final Decision – SLP Dismissed – Compensation to Be Paid with Interest - Special Leave Petition dismissed – Insurer directed to disburse balance amount with interest to claimants within one month via RTGS [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Law - Suspension of Sentence – Requirement of Reasoned Order – Suspension Set Aside – High Court suspended sentence of respondents convicted under Sections 302/149 IPC without assigning reasons – Held: As per Section 389(1) CrPC and Supreme Court precedent, appellate courts must record reasons while suspending sentence in serious offences – Orders passed without adherence to this requirement are legally untenable [Paras 6, 8–9].

Presumption of Innocence Post-Conviction – Not Available – Convicted Accused Not Entitled to Bail as Routine – Supreme Court emphasized that once conviction is recorded, initial presumption of innocence no longer applies – Held: Bail or suspension of sentence should not be granted routinely or without exceptional reasons in cases involving murder [Paras 6, 7, 8].

Appellate Court Duty – Avoid Reappreciation of Evidence at Bail Stage – High Court Erred – Held: At the stage of deciding suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC, appellate courts must not re-evaluate trial evidence or rely on speculative lacunae – Suspension must be justified by exceptional grounds or glaring prima facie errors [Para 8].

Precedents Relied – Omprakash Sahni Case – Applicable Legal Standards Reiterated – The Court relied on Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, (2023) 6 SCC 123, reiterating that suspension of sentence post-conviction under Section 302 IPC should be granted only in rare and exceptional circumstances with clear justification [Paras 7–8].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court Orders Set Aside – Respondents Directed to Surrender – Supreme Court set aside orders of suspension of sentence and directed convicted respondents to surrender within two weeks – High Court requested to hear both criminal appeals and cross-appeals expeditiously [Paras 10–12].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Breach of Contract vs. Cheating – Civil Dispute Camouflaged as Criminal – FIR and Chargesheet Quashed - Dispute arising from an oral agreement for sale of property held to be purely civil in nature – Allegations did not disclose fraudulent intent at inception or essential ingredients of Sections 420 or 406 IPC – Supreme Court quashed FIR and chargesheet to prevent misuse of criminal process.

Repetitive Criminal Complaints – Abuse of Process – Prior Judicial Findings Ignored – Summoning Set Aside - Respondent had earlier failed twice before the Magistrate who ruled the matter was civil – Yet, FIR registered and chargesheet filed on same allegations – Supreme Court found this amounted to harassment and judicial disregard – Summoning order and criminal proceedings quashed.

Mens Rea for Cheating – Not Established – Dishonest Intent Absent at Contract Stage - Citing precedents including V.Y. Jose and Mohammed Ibrahim, Court held that criminal offence of cheating requires fraudulent intent at the inception – Mere breach of promise or payment failure is insufficient for prosecution under Section 420 IPC .

Criminal Intimidation and Breach of Trust – Ingredients Not Satisfied – Charges Unsupported - Court elaborated that entrustment and fiduciary relationship are prerequisites for Section 406 IPC – Similarly, threat causing alarm must be established for Section 506 – Held: Allegations vague and do not constitute offences – Charges without evidentiary support are unsustainable .

Magistrate’s Duty – Cognizance Requires Judicial Application of Mind – Summoning Not Automatic - Emphasized duty of Magistrates to carefully assess material in FIR and chargesheet – Summoning must be based on prima facie offence made out – Vague or copy-pasted FIR content without investigation analysis is not sufficient.

Costs on State – Repeated Misuse of Criminal Law – Exemplary Costs Imposed - Supreme Court imposed ₹50,000 cost on the State of Uttar Pradesh for failure to curb misuse of criminal justice system despite repeated warnings – Directed Chief Secretary to ensure payment and consider internal accountability.

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Criminal Proceedings Quashed - FIR No. 78/2023, chargesheet dated 12.09.2023, and all proceedings thereon quashed – Liberty preserved for respondent to pursue civil remedies if available.