Criminal Law - Preventive Detention – PITNDPS Act - Detenus Already in Judicial Custody – No Material to Show Likelihood of Bail – Detention Orders Quashed – The detenus were already in judicial custody at the time of passing the detention orders – The detaining authority failed to record any cogent material suggesting that there was a likelihood of them being released on bail – Held: Preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for criminal prosecution unless there is a real possibility of release on bail—Detention orders held illegal and quashed [Paras 8-9, 12-13].

Preventive Detention – Violation of Article 22(5) – Failure to Communicate Grounds in a Language Understood by Detenus – Orders Invalid – The detenus were served detention orders in English, a language they did not understand – Though the authorities claimed oral explanation in Nagamese, this did not satisfy the constitutional requirement of effective communication – Held: As per the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench ruling in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, grounds of detention must be provided in a language the detenus can read and understand—Detention orders set aside [Paras 11, 14].

Non-Application of Mind – Detaining Authority Merely Endorsed Police Proposals – Orders Invalid – The detaining authority did not independently record grounds of detention but merely relied on police proposals – This violated the statutory requirement under Section 6 of the PITNDPS Act, which mandates that separate and specific grounds must be framed – Held: The detention orders were passed mechanically without due application of mind and are therefore invalid [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Detention Orders Quashed – Detenus Directed to be Released – The Supreme Court set aside the Gauhati High Court’s judgment upholding the detention orders – The detention orders dated 30.05.2024, and subsequent extensions, were quashed – Detenus directed to be released immediately unless required in any other case [Paras 17].

Land Acquisition – Belting Method – Improper Application – Belting principle applied by the Reference Court and affirmed by the High Court – Held: Inappropriate in the present case as no evidence proved distinct belts or potential for differential use within the acquired land – The entire land was homogeneous and similar in nature – Belting method discarded [Paras 22-24].

Comparable Sale Instances – Reliance on Pre-Acquisition Sale Deeds – High Court enhanced compensation based on three sale instances prior to the date of notification – Held: The sale deeds were genuine and could be relied upon as the transactions were between willing parties and proximate in time – Adjustment towards development potential considered appropriate [Paras 26-31].

Deduction for Development Charges – Applicability – DDA argued for 50% deduction citing undeveloped nature of land – Held: Deduction reduced to 33.33% as the land was located near developed colonies and urban infrastructure – Supreme Court considered ground realities and likelihood of moderate development expenses [Paras 32-35].

Interest under Section 28 – Delay in Payment – High Court granted interest for delayed payment of enhanced compensation – Held: Properly granted as delay was attributable to the appellant – No interference warranted [Paras 36-38].

Final Compensation – Moderate Enhancement – Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by reducing deduction from 50% to 33.33%, resulting in modified compensation – The rest of the judgment, including reliance on comparable sale deeds and grant of interest, upheld [Paras 39-40].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Compensation Recalculated – Supreme Court modified the compensation by reducing the deduction percentage and upheld the grant of interest on enhanced compensation [Para 40].

Temple Management Dispute – Jurisdiction of Civil Court Prevails Over Executive Orders – The dispute over the control of Shri Khereshwar Mahadev Va Dauji Maharaj Temple was pending before the civil court, with an injunction maintaining the status quo – The Allahabad High Court directed the District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate to implement an earlier executive order transferring the temple to the Gram Sabha – Held: When civil litigation is pending, the executive authorities cannot decide ownership or possession disputes; the High Court erred in overriding the civil court’s jurisdiction [Paras 6-9, 14].

Gram Sabha’s Authority Over Public Property – Procedural Non-Compliance – The respondents relied on Sections 34 and 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, to claim Gram Sabha’s management rights over the temple – The Supreme Court held that for the Gram Sabha to initiate legal proceedings, a formal resolution was required under paragraph 128 of the Gram Sabha Manual – Held: Since no such resolution was passed, the writ petition was not maintainable at the instance of the Gram Pradhan in her personal capacity [Paras 10, 15].

Failure to Consider Prior Judicial Orders – High Court’s Erroneous Approach – The High Court disregarded prior orders of the Additional District Judge, which had recognized the civil court’s jurisdi’tion and directed a status quo – The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to reference or consider these judicial findings – Held: High Courts must ensure that orders do not contradict existing judicial decisions, particularly in pending litigation [Paras 12-14].

Public Interest Litigation in Private Disputes – Limits on Writ Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court observed that the High Court treated the writ petition as a public interest litigation despite its private nature – Held: A dispute over temple management between two rival committees does not constitute a public interest matter warranting extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 [Paras 15-16].

Directions for Expeditious Disposal of Civil Suit – Status Quo to Continue – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aligarh, to decide the pending civil suit within six months – Till then, the interim order maintaining the status quo would continue [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The High Court’s order was set aside, and the civil court was directed to resolve the dispute within six months.

Criminal Law - Murder – Common Object – Unlawful Assembly – Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Upheld – Accused persons armed with swords fatally assaulted the deceased following a land and water dispute – The trial court and High Court convicted the accused under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC – Held: The prosecution successfully established the presence and participation of the accused in an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the murder – Conviction upheld [Paras 5, 8, 13].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Omissions Not Material – Conviction Based on Trustworthy Evidence – Three eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-5) provided a consistent and detailed account of the murder – Minor omissions in statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC were not sufficient to discredit their testimonies – Held: Their evidence was of sterling quality and sufficient to convict the accused – The failure to examine other potential eyewitnesses did not weaken the prosecution's case [Paras 9-11, 14].

Plea of Alibi – Accused No. 9 Fails to Prove Absence at Scene of Crime – Conviction Sustained – Accused No. 9 (Tanaji) claimed he was on duty with the crime branch at the time of the incident – However, the prosecution proved his presence at the crime scene – No documentary evidence was produced by the accused to support his alibi – Held: The plea of alibi was not substantiated and was rightly rejected by the lower courts [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Confirmed – The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals – The conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court were upheld – Accused No. 9 directed to surrender within one month to serve the remaining sentence – No relief granted to the other accused, as they had already completed their sentence [Para 15].

Civil Law - Contempt of Court – Violation of Undertaking – Appellants Held Guilty of Disobedience – The appellants’ counsel gave an undertaking before the Trial Court on 11th July 2007 and 13th August 2007 that they would not alienate the suit property – The undertaking was later made into a court order on 17th November 2007 and extended periodically – Despite this, the appellants executed multiple sale deeds between 2007 and 2011 – Held: The High Court rightly held the appellants guilty of contempt for willful disobedience of the undertaking given to the court [Paras 3, 6, 12].

Plea of Lack of Authorization – Rejected – Advocates’ Authority in Court Proceedings – The appellants argued that their counsel gave the undertaking without express authorization – The Court rejected this claim, holding that an advocate-client relationship is fiduciary in nature, and any statement made before the court is binding unless proven otherwise – Held: The appellants’ inaction for four years after the undertaking was given showed that they accepted it – No evidence was presented to show that the counsel acted beyond his authority [Paras 9-11].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Justified Exercise – Orders of the Court Must Be Obeyed – The Court reaffirmed that contempt jurisdiction exists to uphold the dignity of the judiciary and enforce compliance with court orders – Even if an injunction order is later set aside, disobedience during its validity remains punishable – Held: The High Court correctly exercised contempt jurisdiction in punishing the appellants for disregarding their undertaking and violating the court’s authority [Paras 7, 13].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Imprisonment Deleted, But Fine Enhanced – The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order – The three-month civil imprisonment imposed on appellant No.1 was deleted due to advanced age (68 years) – However, the fine was increased from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.13 lakhs with 6% interest from 2nd August 2013 – The attachment of the suit property remained undisturbed [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Complaint – Allegation of Theft – Contradiction by Subsequent Conduct – Complaint Quashed – The complainants alleged that the first appellant (wife) stole ornaments and valuables from her matrimonial home; however, the third respondent (husband) had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights after the alleged theft — Held: If the husband genuinely believed that the wife committed theft, he would not have sought her return to cohabitation; suppression of this fact in the complaint vitiated the proceedings [Paras 5-6].

Abuse of Process – Suppression of Material Facts – Complaint Set Aside – The Court found that the complainants deliberately suppressed the pending matrimonial proceedings, which were crucial to assessing the credibility of the allegations — Held: Complaint was an abuse of the process of law and deserved to be quashed [Paras 5-7].

Quashing of Proceedings – Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Power Reaffirmed – The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in declining to exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC despite the evident abuse of legal process — Held: The summoning order and the complaint were quashed to prevent injustice [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Summoning Order and Complaint Quashed – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court and Magistrate’s orders, and clarified that these findings would not affect pending matrimonial proceedings between the parties [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Law - Criminal Proceedings – Allegations of Theft and Conspiracy – Suppression of Material Facts – Complaint Quashed - The second and third respondents (husband and mother-in-law) filed a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC, alleging theft and conspiracy against the appellants (wife and her family) – Summons were issued for offences under Sections 379 and 120-B IPC – However, the respondents had earlier filed a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but failed to disclose this fact in the complaint – Held: The suppression of material facts and the contradictory actions of the complainants indicate an abuse of process – Decision: Complaint quashed [Paras 3-7].

Powers of High Court – Exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Failure to Prevent Abuse of Process - The High Court of Himachal Pradesh refused to quash the criminal proceedings – The Supreme Court held that the case was fit for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process – Decision: The High Court erred in not quashing the complaint, and its order dated 02/01/2024 was set aside [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Prior Matrimonial Disputes Considered – Filing of Complaint After Marital Discord - The complaint was filed after the wife had initiated legal proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act – The alleged theft occurred in August 2020, but the complaint was filed only in October 2021 – Held: The delayed filing of the complaint, along with the contradictory stance of the husband in filing for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, indicates mala fide intent – Decision: Proceedings quashed [Paras 4-6].

Criminal Law – Pre-Charge Evidence – Right to Fair Hearing – Application under Section 311 CrPC Allowed - The appellant, alleging fraud in a land sale agreement, sought to examine himself as a witness after the trial court closed pre-charge evidence – The application under Section 311 CrPC was dismissed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court – Held: The appellant must be given an opportunity to present his pre-charge evidence – Decision: Impugned orders set aside; appellant permitted to tender pre-charge evidence on 19.03.2025, subject to payment of costs [Paras 8-9].

Fraudulent Sale Agreement – Allegation of Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating – Proceedings to Continue - Appellant alleged that he was duped into paying ₹1.13 crores for a land deal that never materialized – A forged General Power of Attorney was allegedly issued – Complaint was filed under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC – Decision: Supreme Court directed that after tendering pre-charge evidence, the trial court shall decide the matter in accordance with law [Paras 3-7, 11].

Judicial Discretion – Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court’s Order Interfered With - High Court declined to interfere with the trial court’s rejection of Section 311 CrPC application – Supreme Court found that the lower courts erred in denying the appellant the opportunity to present evidence – Decision: High Court’s order dated 18.09.2024 set aside, allowing the appellant to testify [Paras 9-10].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheques – Legally Enforceable Debt – Lease Agreement – The appellant issued four post-dated cheques amounting to ₹9,00,000/- as security deposit refund under a lease agreement – Upon dishonour, the respondent filed criminal complaints – The Trial Court convicted the appellant but awarded only ₹3,00,000/- as compensation – The appellate Court and the High Court upheld the conviction and enhanced the compensation to ₹9,00,000/- – Held: A security cheque cannot be treated as a legally enforceable debt if the underlying contractual obligation remains unfulfilled – The respondent retained possession of the rented premises for five years without paying rent, which justified deductions from the security deposit – Conviction upheld, but compensation reduced to ₹3,00,000/- as awarded by the Trial Court [Paras 16-22].

Criminal Law – Revisional Powers of High Court – Enhancement of Compensation – Whether Justified – The High Court enhanced the compensation from ₹3,00,000/- to ₹9,00,000/- without considering the appellant’s counterclaims regarding unpaid rent – Held: Compensation enhancement must be based on established liability – The High Court erred in ignoring the findings of the Trial Court regarding deductions from the security deposit – The appellate Court and High Court orders were set aside, and the Trial Court’s judgment was restored [Paras 23-26].

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Security Deposit Refund – Impact on Cheque Dishonour Cases – The appellant had filed a separate eviction suit against the respondent, which was decreed in his favour – The respondent was evicted through execution proceedings – Held: The respondent’s continued possession without rent payment affected the refund obligation – The appellant was entitled to adjust dues before refunding the deposit – The prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act could not override contractual claims under tenancy laws [Paras 17-21].

Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction Maintained – Compensation Restored to ₹3,00,000/- – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act but restored the Trial Court’s compensation order of ₹3,00,000/- – Excess amount deposited pursuant to the High Court’s order to be reimbursed to the appellant – Compliance to be ensured within two months [Paras 26-27].

Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The appellant’s conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act was upheld, but the enhancement of compensation to ₹9,00,000/- was set aside. The Trial Court’s order awarding ₹3,00,000/- as compensation was restored. Any excess amount deposited shall be reimbursed to the appellant. The Trial Court was directed to ensure compliance within two months.