Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Prima Facie Case – Sections 197 CrPC and 83 of M.P. Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam – Protection of actions in official duty – High Court erred in refusing to quash FIR based on mere allegations without sufficient evidence – Held: No prima facie case established; allegations lack evidence of intent or knowledge of forgery [Paras 11-15].

Ingredients of Cheating – Section 420 IPC – Essential elements include dishonest intention and false representation – No evidence on record to indicate appellant's involvement or intent to defraud – Allegations based on conjecture insufficient to sustain criminal charges [Para 12].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120B IPC – Requirements include meeting of minds and agreement to commit an unlawful act – No material on record to suggest appellant's participation in any conspiracy – Charges unsubstantiated [Para 12].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Bhajan Lal Guidelines – FIR fails to disclose cognizable offence or intention to defraud – Case falls under principles for quashing as laid down in Bhajan Lal – Criminal proceedings quashed [Para 14].

Decision – High Court judgment quashed; all proceedings arising from FIR and subsequent actions in Crime No. 241 of 2016 dismissed – Appeal allowed [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Limitation - Delay in Filing Appeal – Right to Appeal under Article 21 – Fundamental Right – High Court erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without proper examination of reasons provided by the appellant – Appellant cited lack of monetary resources and livelihood challenges as causes for delay – Held: Delay of 1637 days condoned; appeal restored [Paras 4-7].

Right to Appeal – Expansive Scope under Article 21 – An appeal against conviction is a statutory and fundamental right affecting liberty – Condonation of delay warranted in cases where the appellant provides reasons, even if imperfect – High Court’s dismissal based on technical grounds erroneous [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Impugned order set aside – Criminal Appeal No. 1001/2021 restored for disposal on merits – Directions issued to High Court for expeditious adjudication [Para 8].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Maintainability of Complaint – Complaint Filed by Power of Attorney Holder – Quashing of Summons and Complaint – Sole Proprietor Authorised Manager to File Complaint – Trial Court Issued Summons Based on Sufficient Evidence – High Court Quashed Complaint on Grounds of Lack of Explicit Averments Regarding Personal Knowledge – Supreme Court Held High Court Erred – Explicit Averments Sufficient to Show Knowledge of Transactions – Complaint Restored for Trial on Merits [Paras 1-36].

Representation – Power of Attorney Holder – Personal Knowledge Requirement – Supreme Court Reiterated Principles from A.C. Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra and TRL Krosaki Refractories Limited – Power of Attorney Holder Must Have Personal Knowledge of Transactions and Must Explicitly State It – Averments in Complaint, Affidavit, and Letter of Authority Held Sufficient to Establish Knowledge – Quashing of Complaint Premature Without Trial [Paras 15-21, 26-33].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope of High Court’s Powers – Quashing of Complaint – Supreme Court Held Inherent Powers to be Exercised Sparingly – Premature Quashing Denies Trial Court Opportunity to Examine Merits – High Court’s Intervention Found Unwarranted in Light of Settled Law [Paras 34-35].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – High Court Judgment Quashing Summoning Order Set Aside – Complaint No. 701 of 2021 Restored for Decision on Merits – Trial Court to Proceed in Accordance with Law – Pending Applications Disposed of [Paras 36-37].

Land Acquisition – Compensation Determination – Shifting Date of Notification – Appeal Before Supreme Court – Petitioners’ Lands Acquired for Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project in 2003 – No Compensation Paid Despite Lapse of 22 Years – SLAO Shifted Preliminary Notification Date to 2011 for Calculating Compensation – High Court Quashed SLAO Award for Lack of Jurisdiction – Division Bench Held Writ Appeal Premature – Supreme Court Exercised Power Under Article 142 to Direct Fresh Award Based on 2019 Market Value – Relief Granted to Avoid Violation of Article 300-A and Promote Justice – Appeal Disposed of with Directions to SLAO for Fresh Determination [Paras 1-60].

Land Acquisition Act – Delay in Award – SLAO’s Power to Shift Notification Date – Court's Intervention – Supreme Court Held SLAO Cannot Alter Preliminary Notification Date – Shifting Permissible Only Under Articles 142 or 226 – Exceptional Circumstances Justify Judicial Intervention – Inordinate Delay in Award and Payment of Compensation Violates Right to Property Under Article 300-A – Relief Modeled to Provide Justice Without Burdening Public Interest or Exchequer – Fresh Determination Ordered on 2019 Market Value Basis [Paras 17, 53-57].

Right to Property – Constitutional and Human Right – Article 300-A – Inaction by State Authorities – Supreme Court Noted Deprivation Without Compensation for Over Two Decades – Emphasized Expeditious Compensation Determination – Directed SLAO to Reassess Compensation Based on Current Market Value (2019) and Grant Statutory Benefits – Held: Right to Property Cannot Be Mocked by Procedural Delays or Neglect [Paras 42-47, 55-57].

Delay and Injustice – Compensation Valuation – Supreme Court Considered Escalation in Land Prices and Inflation – Ruled Compensation Based on 2003 Market Value Inadequate Due to Loss of Purchasing Power – Compensation Determination Adjusted to Prevent Travesty of Justice – Avoided Costly Fresh Acquisition Under 2013 LA Act – Rights of All Parties Preserved [Paras 48-54, 57].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Judgment of High Court’s Division Bench Set Aside – SLAO Directed to Determine Compensation Based on Market Value as on April 22, 2019, Within Two Months – Appellants to Receive Full Statutory Benefits – Rights of Parties to Challenge Award Remain Intact – Respondents No. 6 & 7 Permitted to Seek Remedies for Additional Costs from State/KIADB as per Agreement [Paras 59-60].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of Cheating, Fraud, and Criminal Conspiracy – FIR Filed Against the Appellant, a Foreign National, and Project Manager of Hyundai Engineering & Construction India LLP – Alleged Non-Payment of Rs. 9 Crores by Subcontractor Entity (YSSS) – Appellant Alleged to Have Connived in Default of Payment – High Court Refused to Quash FIR but Granted Protection from Arrest – Held: High Court Erred in Refusing to Quash FIR as No Specific Allegations or Prima Facie Offence Made Out Against Appellant – FIR Quashed [Paras 1-14].
Quashing Power – Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of Constitution – Legal Principles – Supreme Court Reiterates Guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – FIR Can Be Quashed Where Allegations Do Not Prima Facie Constitute an Offence, Are Absurd, or Are Manifestly Malicious – Cites Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Other Precedents on Abuse of Process of Law [Paras 6-9].
Absence of Specific Allegations – FIR Against Appellant Lacked Specific Accusations of Criminal Acts or Direct Role in Alleged Fraud – Allegations Were Primarily Against Subcontractor Entities – Held: Vague Allegations and Lack of Material Evidence Do Not Justify Continuation of Criminal Proceedings – FIR Amounts to Abuse of Process of Law [Paras 10-13].
Decision – Appeal allowed – FIR No. 64/2020 and all proceedings arising therefrom against the appellant quashed – High Court's judgment set aside [Para 13-14].
 

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption Act – Quashing of FIRs – FIRs registered against Central Government employees for alleged offenses under Section 7 of the PC Act – FIRs and chargesheets were quashed by the High Court for lack of State consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act and absence of notification designating the CBI Court as a Special Court under the PC Act – Held: High Court erred in holding that lack of State consent vitiated the proceedings – General consent granted by undivided Andhra Pradesh continued to apply post-bifurcation unless repealed – Notification designating the CBI Court as a Special Court remained valid in the absence of repeal or modification – Appeals allowed – FIRs and proceedings restored [Paras 1, 12-15, 19-23, 29-30].

Jurisdiction – Bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh – Consent Under DSPE Act – CBI registered FIRs for offenses occurring within Andhra Pradesh but investigated by Hyderabad branch – Contention of invalidity due to lack of separate consent from Andhra Pradesh rejected – Circular Memo of 26.05.2014 clarified that pre-bifurcation laws, including general consent, continued to operate in both States post-bifurcation – No legal vacuum existed – Held: Investigations and proceedings by CBI were valid [Paras 16-18, 23-27].

Special Court Designation – Notification Validity – G.O.M.S. No. 88 dated 07.08.2012 designated CBI Court at Hyderabad as Special Court for Rayalaseema districts in Andhra Pradesh under the PC Act – Court designation continued to be valid post-bifurcation due to Circular Memo and absence of repeal – Held: CBI Court at Hyderabad had jurisdiction to entertain cases until properly transferred [Paras 19-22].

CBI Investigation – Applicability to Central Government Employees – Offenses alleged against Central Government employees under a Central Act (PC Act) – Held: Consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act not required to investigate Central Government employees for offenses under Central Acts, irrespective of location – Followed precedents in Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar and Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. [Paras 25-28].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court’s quashment of FIRs and proceedings under the PC Act set aside – Cases restored to the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool – Trial to proceed as per law [Paras 29-30].
 

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Genuineness of Will – Appellants (Defendants 1 to 3) challenged the decrees passed by the Trial Court and the High Court affirming 5/7th share in properties to the plaintiffs (Respondents 1 to 5) – Plaintiffs claimed partition and denial of Will’s validity – Defendants relied on an unregistered Will dated 06.04.1990 in their favor – Trial Court and High Court found the Will invalid due to suspicious circumstances and upheld plaintiffs’ claim – Held: Plaintiffs entitled to 5/7th share, and illegitimate sons entitled to 1/7th share each – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 4, 10, 11, 31].

Legitimacy – Rights of Children from Second Wife – Properties were self-acquired assets of the deceased testator allotted through a partition deed – Legitimacy of the second wife and her children irrelevant for inheritance – Held: Second wife’s children entitled to their share (1/7th each), along with plaintiffs’ 5/7th share [Paras 16-18].

Will – Proof and Suspicious Circumstances – Defendants failed to establish execution of the unregistered Will – Active involvement of the first defendant in procuring stamp papers, contradictory recitals regarding testator’s health, and non-examination of critical witnesses created suspicion – Non-matching signatures of the testator in the partition deed and Will – Courts rightly held the Will invalid [Paras 15(i)-(vii), 17, 25-27, 30].

Suspicious Circumstances Identified:

Active role of the first defendant (a beneficiary) in procuring the stamp papers, contrary to her claim of non-involvement [Para 15(i)].
Contradictions regarding the testator's health – Will indicated sound health but evidence suggested severe illness [Para 15(ii), 17].
Testator's signatures on the Will and the partition deed were non-matching [Para 15(iii)].
Absence of testimony from the scribe and the typist of the Will [Para 15(iv)].
Incongruities about the place of execution (Madurai) and procurement of stamp papers (Tenkasi) [Para 15(vi), 29].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings on the invalidity of the Will upheld – Plaintiffs awarded 5/7th share, and defendants (children of the second wife) 1/7th share each – No order as to costs [Paras 31-32].
 

Electricity Act - Section 63 - Adoption of Tariff by Local Authority – Section 63 does not limit the right to apply for tariff adoption to distribution licensees or generating companies – Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), a local authority under Rule 15 of the SWM Rules 2016, is empowered to conduct transparent bidding and seek tariff adoption for WTE projects – Appeal allowed, DERC orders upheld [Paras 10, 27, 35-36].

Solid Waste Management Rules - Statutory Mandate – Rule 15 of the SWM Rules requires local authorities to construct, operate, and maintain WTE projects – Held: MCD’s actions comply with the statutory obligations for managing municipal solid waste – APTEL’s conclusion that MCD lacked authority overturned [Paras 20-22, 38].

Harmonious Construction - Section 63 and 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act – Section 63’s bidding process for tariff determination must be read alongside Section 86(1)(b), which mandates State Commissions to regulate power procurement and pricing – APTEL erred by narrowly interpreting Section 63 [Paras 39-42, 44-46].

National Tariff Policy and SWM Rules - Integration with Electricity Act – Rule 6.4 of the National Tariff Policy requires compulsory procurement of energy from WTE projects – SWM Rules and Electricity Act must be read in tandem – Held: MCD's tender process aligned with statutory and policy mandates [Paras 25-26, 49].

Decision – Appeals allowed – APTEL’s judgment set aside – DERC orders of 6th March 2023 and 7th March 2023 approving the project and tariff reinstated [Paras 58-59].

Tenancy Rights - Land Law – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Occupancy Rights – Manipulation of Proceedings – High Court’s Judgment in Writ Appeals Set Aside – Supreme Court Finds Non-Disclosure of Crucial Facts and Manipulation by Respondent No.1 – Restores Single Judge’s Judgment [Paras 1-14].

Occupancy Rights – Land Tribunal Proceedings – Rejection in LRF No.835/74-75 Final – Misrepresentation of Facts by Respondent No.1 – Tribunal’s Later Decision in LRF No.1114/74-75 Incorrectly Linked – Supreme Court Highlights Manipulative Changes in Names and Records by Respondents [Paras 8-13].

Procedural Lapses – Delay Condonation – Delay of 1378 Days in Writ Appeal No.206/2007 – Supreme Court Criticizes Non-Disclosure of Consequential Orders Passed After Single Judge’s Decision – Observes Abuse of Process by Respondent No.1 [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Integrity – Litigant’s Conduct – Non-Disclosure of Material Facts and Manipulative Changes in Records – Supreme Court Relies on Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India to Deny Relief to Respondent No.1 Due to Lack of Clean Hands [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Appeals allowed; judgments in Writ Appeals Nos.1708, 1705, 1707, 1709, 206, and 1738 of 2006 set aside – Judgments in the original Writ Petitions restored for further proceedings [Para 14].