Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Competency of Appeal – State of Chhattisgarh and de-facto complainant challenged acquittal of Amit Jogi in murder case originally investigated by State Police and later by CBI – High Court dismissed appeals as not maintainable based on three-Judge Bench decision in Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2010) 5 SCC 1 – Held: Where CBI conducts investigation under Section 378(2) CrPC, only Central Government is competent to file appeal – State’s appeal not maintainable – Ratio in Lalu Prasad Yadav upheld [Paras 18-24, 35].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 378 CrPC – Distinction Between Sub-sections (1) and (2) – Section 378(2) is an exception to 378(1) – Only Central Government can appeal in cases investigated by CBI or central agency under a Central Act – Words “save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)” in 378(1) clearly limit State’s power to appeal in such cases – State's appeal rightly dismissed by High Court [Paras 18-21].

Investigation – Mixed Investigation by State Police and CBI – FIR initially registered and investigated by State Police – CBI took over after dissatisfaction by de-facto complainant – Chargesheet by CBI – Argument that State could still appeal due to initial involvement rejected – Supreme Court leaves open possibility that in suitable future case, where CBI is involved at State’s behest, State’s right to appeal may be examined – But not decided in this case [Paras 22-25].

Criminal Procedure – Delay in Appeal – Application for Leave to Appeal by CBI – High Court rejected CBI’s leave application on ground of 1373 days’ delay – Supreme Court condoned delay in view of gravity of charges – Directed High Court to consider CBI’s leave application on merits – CBI’s bona fide explanation noted – Appeal by CBI allowed [Paras 26, 30-33].

Victim’s Right of Appeal – Applicability of Proviso to Section 372 CrPC – De-facto complainant filed appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC – Trial court’s acquittal judgment dated 31.05.2007 – Proviso came into force on 31.12.2009 – Held: Victim’s right to appeal applies prospectively to acquittals post 31.12.2009 – Appeal rightly dismissed by High Court [Paras 27-29].

Hearing of Acquitted Accused – Exceptional Circumstance – Though ordinarily not required, Supreme Court directed that respondent-accused (Amit Jogi) be heard before High Court in CBI’s leave application due to long delay and exceptional facts – State and de-facto complainant also to be impleaded as parties [Para 34].

Criminal Appeal No. 1927 of 2014 (State of Chhattisgarh) – Dismissed

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 7331/2011 & 1438/2012 (de-facto complainant Satish Jaggi) – Dismissed

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 3037/2012 (CBI) – Allowed – Delay condoned – Matter remitted to High Court to decide on merits of CBI’s leave to appeal against acquittal [Paras 33, 35].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act – High Court quashed proceedings arising from FIR No.35 of 2024, registered by appellant-wife against husband and in-laws alleging harassment and dowry demand – High Court held non-mention of two specific incidents (dated 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022) in earlier complaints before FIR suggests afterthought – Supreme Court held: approach of High Court amounted to conducting a ‘mini-trial’, which is impermissible at the stage of Section 482 CrPC – Prime facie case of cruelty and dowry demand made out – FIR not liable to be quashed [Paras 17, 18, 19, 22, 27]

Inherent Powers – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Supreme Court reiterated that power under Section 482 must be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases – At stage of quashing, Court must only assess if prima facie allegations constitute cognizable offence – Court cannot go into merits, credibility or genuineness of allegations – Held: High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 by evaluating reliability of complainant’s allegations, thus conducting a ‘mini-trial’ [Paras 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]

Dowry Harassment – Delay in Lodging FIR – Delay of one year in filing FIR after initial complaints to Women’s Cell – Respondents argued inconsistencies and delay undermine prosecution case – Supreme Court held: prior complaints disclosed continuous harassment and dowry demands – Mere omission of specific dates in earlier complaints does not negate existence of offence – Delay reasonably explained – Quashing not justified [Paras 13, 14, 19, 27]

Witness Credibility – FIR vs Prior Complaint – High Court concluded FIR was afterthought due to absence of specific incidents in prior complaints – Supreme Court held: High Court erred in judging veracity and motivation of FIR at pre-trial stage – Such evaluation is for trial court – FIR contained detailed and specific allegations that disclose cognizable offences – Quashing unsustainable [Paras 18, 19, 27]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order dated 19.07.2024 quashing FIR No.35 of 2024 set aside – Criminal proceedings against respondents to continue – All defences of the parties left open for trial [Paras 28, 29]

Partition Suit – Validity of Release Deeds – Family Settlement – Fresh Preliminary Decree Passed – Challenge to concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court upholding partition claim of plaintiffs – Appellants (LRs of Defendant No. 5) contended that plaintiffs’ brothers (Plaintiff No. 2 and Defendant No. 3) had relinquished their shares via registered release deeds – Also claimed partition had taken place under an unregistered “Palupatti” dated 11.02.1972 – Trial Court and High Court held the release deeds were not “acted upon” and the Palupatti inadmissible due to non-registration – Held: Both courts below erred in law and in appreciation of documentary and conduct-based evidence – Release deeds were valid and binding – Palupatti admissible for collateral purposes – Partitionable estate and shares revised accordingly [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11].

Release Deeds – Legal Effect – Registered Release Deeds dated 09.11.1956 (Ex.D-15) and 14.09.1967 (Ex.D-16) – Plaintiff No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 respectively relinquished their shares – Supreme Court held: Deeds were duly registered, proved on record, and not rebutted – Execution admitted or not effectively challenged – Absence of cross-examination and conduct over decades corroborated their validity – Presumptions under Section 90 of Evidence Act/Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam apply – Estoppel created against releasors from claiming share in joint family estate – Deeds effective to exclude Plaintiff No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 from coparcenary from respective dates [Paras 7.1 to 7.9].

Unregistered Partition Deed – Collateral Purpose – Admissibility of Palupatti (Ex.D-17) – Held: Though unregistered, document can be used to prove severance of joint status and nature of subsequent possession – Cumulative conduct including separate cultivation, residence, revenue entries, independent dealings with land support disruption – Partition was real, effective, and acted upon – High Court and Trial Court erred in rejecting document purely on registration ground – Long-standing course of conduct consistent with separation [Paras 8.1 to 8.9].

Hindu Succession – Partitionable Estate – Scope and Computation – Coparcenary restricted to Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant No. 5 as of 1969 (due to valid releases by Plaintiff No. 2 and Defendant No. 3) – Notional partition posited under unamended Section 6 of HSA – Schedule A and items 1–16 of Schedule C form the family pool – Schedule B and item 17 of Schedule C excluded as co-owned equally by Defendant No. 5 and Defendant No. 6 – Shares determined accordingly [Paras 9.1 to 9.3].

Fresh Preliminary Decree – Revised Shares – Supreme Court set aside High Court and Trial Court decisions – Substituted new preliminary decree – Declared Ex.D-15 and Ex.D-16 valid and binding – Held severance effective from 11.02.1972 – Revised shares: Plaintiff No. 1 = 8/21, Defendant No. 5 = 8/21, Each daughter’s branch = 1/21, Predeceased daughter’s share to Defendant No. 2 – Plaintiff No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 excluded – Schedule B and item 17 of Schedule C to be held equally by Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 – Final decree to be drawn accordingly [Paras 10, 11, 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments of High Court and Trial Court set aside – Fresh preliminary decree passed declaring valid releases and severance – Shares recomputed – Final decree to be drawn by Trial Court in conformity with this judgment – No order as to costs – All IAs disposed of [Paras 10 to 14].

Arbitration and Conciliation – Validity of Arbitration Clause – Clause 8.28 not constituting arbitration agreement – Clause referred to dispute resolution through negotiation, mediation by Chairmen, and only used the term "arbitration" loosely – No binding intent or finality indicated – Chairmen of parties not neutral arbitrators – Court held that mere use of the word “arbitration” without intent to submit disputes to binding adjudication does not satisfy Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Held: No valid arbitration agreement existed – Dismissal of Section 11(6) application upheld [Paras 4-6, 13-27]

Contract Law – Interpretation of Dispute Resolution Clauses – Three-tier clause in software agreement involved negotiation, mediation, and court access if unresolved – Clause failed to demonstrate intent to be bound by arbitral decision – Reliance on case law including K.K. Modi, Jagdish Chander, Mahanadi Coalfields to determine essential attributes of arbitration agreement – Held: Clause structured for internal settlement, not formal arbitration [Paras 14-25]

Post-Contractual Correspondence – Effect on Arbitration Agreement – No denial of arbitration clause in respondent’s replies – However, absence of foundational arbitration agreement renders post-notice correspondence irrelevant – Held: No estoppel can operate to create arbitration agreement where none exists – Distinguished Powertech and Visa International cases [Paras 28-31]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No valid arbitration agreement existed – Appellant permitted to approach civil court for remedy – No costs awarded [Paras 32-34].

Motor Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Compensation – Split Multiplier – Applicability – High Court reduced compensation by applying split multiplier on assumption of post-retirement income reduction – Held: There exists divergence among High Courts on applying split multiplier – Following Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier must depend solely on age of the deceased – Retirement or superannuation cannot be treated as an “exceptional circumstance” to justify a split multiplier – Split multiplier is foreign to the Motor Vehicles Act and should not be used by Tribunals or Courts [Paras 14–19].

Judicial Discipline – Divergence of Views – Intra-Court Conflicts – Supreme Court expressed concern over inconsistent approaches by coordinate benches within same High Courts, leading to uncertainty for Motor Accident Claims Tribunals – Directed that where conflicting views exist, the matter should be referred to a larger bench to maintain judicial propriety [Para 14].

Motor Accident Compensation – Income Assessment – Future Prospects – Income at the time of death to be taken as base for computation – Future prospects of 15% correctly applied for deceased aged 51 years – High Court failed to comply with directive in Pranay Sethi regarding 10% enhancement under conventional heads every three years – Corrected computation yielded total compensation of ₹47,76,794/- [Paras 19–20].

Directions – Prospective Application – Circulation to High Courts and Tribunals – The ruling on non-applicability of split multiplier to operate prospectively – Registrar (Judicial) directed to circulate copy to Registrars General of all High Courts and to Motor Accident Tribunals for uniform application [Para 22].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment dated 28.06.2024 and review orders dated 27.11.2024 set aside – Tribunal award dated 02.04.2014 restored with modification to ₹47,76,794/- compensation and interest @7.5% p.a. – Directions for remittance of compensation to appellants’ bank accounts before 30.11.2025 – Prospective effect clarified [Paras 20–23].

Execution of Decree – Abatement of Appeal – Decree Passed in Favour of Deceased Appellants – Nullity – Trial Court’s Decree Revived – Decree passed by First Appellate Court in favour of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 who had died prior to hearing and without substitution of legal heirs – Held: Decree a nullity as Order XXII Rule 6 CPC not attracted – Decree of Trial Court alone executable – Execution petition wrongly dismissed [Paras 5–14]

Civil Procedure – Abatement – Death of Appellants – Effect – Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 died before appeal hearing – No legal heirs brought on record – First appellate court’s judgment held to be void ab initio – Citing Rajendra Prasad v. Khirodhar Mahto and Amba Bai v. Gopal – High Court erred in treating appellate decree as operative – Restoration of execution proceedings ordered [Paras 8–13]

Execution Law – Null Decree – Executability – Principle – Where decree is a nullity, its invalidity can be raised even at execution stage – Citing Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan – Appellant entitled to enforce trial court decree dated 14.08.2006 – Rejection of execution by courts below unsustainable [Paras 14–16]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of executing court and High Court set aside – Execution proceedings restored – Decree of trial court dated 14.08.2006 held valid and executable – No order as to costs [Para 16]

Election Law – Disqualification – Non-disclosure of Conviction – Section 138 NI Act – Election Set Aside – Petitioner elected as Councillor but failed to disclose conviction and sentence of one year under Section 138 of the NI Act in affidavit under Rule 24-A – High Court and Trial Court held that non-disclosure breached Rule 24-A and attracted Section 22(1)(d)(i) & (iii) of MP Municipalities Act – Held: Disclosure mandatory irrespective of nature of offence – Omission affected the validity of nomination and the election was rightly declared void [Paras 1–5, 12–17, 19–24]

Election Affidavits – False Declaration – Rule 24-A of MP Nirvachan Rules – Right to Know – Petitioner furnished false affidavit omitting criminal conviction – Such omission held to interfere with the free exercise of electoral rights of voters under Article 19(1)(a) – Citing Association for Democratic Reforms and Krishnamoorthy – Held: False affidavit violates voter’s right to informed choice and mandates invalidation of the election [Paras 13–15, 20–24]

Subsequent Acquittal – Effect on Nomination Validity – Acquittal After Election – Petitioner claimed disqualification was cured as conviction was later set aside – Court held eligibility is to be assessed as on date of nomination – Subsequent developments irrelevant for compliance with Rule 24-A – Held: Subsequent acquittal does not invalidate prior disqualification or omission [Paras 5, 12, 19]

Article 136 – Discretion Not Invoked – Concurrent Findings – Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136 – Held: No exceptional circumstances or miscarriage of justice shown – Petitioner’s non-disclosure was deliberate and unexplained – She did not enter witness box – Bye-election held and she lost – No reason to invoke discretionary jurisdiction [Paras 25–26]

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – Election rightly declared void due to improper acceptance of nomination and suppression of material facts – No interference warranted under Article 136 [Paras 25–26]

Municipal Law – Building Plan Sanction – Mixed-Use Regulations – Whether owner can be compelled to construct commercial ground floor in notified mixed-use streets – Held: No; mixed-use is only permissive, not mandatory – Authorities acted arbitrarily in denying sanction for purely residential construction – Deemed sanction upheld – Directions to approve fresh plans within four weeks – Costs of ₹10 lakhs imposed on SDMC for harassment [Paras 10–16, 19–20].

Building Plan Sanction – Mixed-Use Streets – MPD-2021 – Commercial Use Permissive, Not Mandatory - Mixed-use notification (15.09.2006) and Circular dated 27.05.2009 make it clear that commercial use on ground floor of mixed-use streets is optional – Owner may choose to develop property as (i) commercial, (ii) mixed-use, or (iii) purely residential – The circular expressly states that plans “can be sanctioned… as per the choice of the applicant” – High Court correctly held that owners cannot be forced to convert ground floor to commercial use [Paras 10–12].

Municipal Governance – Arbitrary Refusal of Sanction – Appellant’s Case Found Illogical and Contrary to Record - SDMC’s argument that respondents must compulsorily maintain a commercial ground floor is inconsistent with its own earlier case that the plans lacked stilt parking – No statutory instrument mandates compulsory commercial use – Court finds SDMC’s stand irrational, illogical, and contrary to MPD-2021 – Forcing citizens to set up shops when they desire only residential use held wholly unjustified [Paras 9, 13–14].

Dilapidated Structure – Fundamental Right to Rebuild – Municipality Cannot Prevent Reconstruction of Unsafe Home - Respondents’ 85-year-old residential house (constructed in 1940) was in a dangerously dilapidated condition – Court notes photographic evidence showing the premises at risk of collapse – Instead of ensuring safety, SDMC obstructed rebuilding for 15 years – Conduct held oppressive and amounting to harassment – Right to rebuild residential house recognised as a legitimate, vested entitlement [Paras 15–16].

Concurrent Findings – Tribunal, ADJ, and High Court All Upheld Deemed Sanction – Supreme Court Declines Interference - Three authorities concurrently held that respondents’ plans deserved sanction – Tribunal granted deemed sanction; ADJ affirmed; High Court affirmed and dismissed review – No perversity, no legal error, and no misinterpretation found – Interference under Article 136 unwarranted [Paras 5–9, 17].

Costs – Harassment by Public Authority – Exemplary Costs of ₹10 Lakhs Imposed on SDMC - Given prolonged litigation (15 years), arbitrary obstruction, and hardship caused to elderly residents, Court imposes ₹10,00,000 costs on SDMC to be paid to respondents on or before 17.12.2025 – Payment to be reported to Supreme Court [Para 20].

Directions – Fresh Plans – Mandatory Sanction Within Four Weeks - Respondents permitted to submit fresh building plans for residential construction – SDMC directed to grant sanction within four weeks from submission – Respondents may also rely on earlier plans approved by High Court [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court order affirmed – Respondents entitled to rebuild residential house – Fresh plans to be sanctioned within four weeks – Costs of ₹10,00,000 imposed on SDMC – Connected appeal also disposed [Paras 18–22].

Criminal Procedure – Arrest – Communication of Grounds – Mode, Timing, and Language – Arrest without written communication of grounds violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) – Arrest and remand thereby rendered illegal – Minimum requirement: Written grounds of arrest to be furnished at least two hours before production for remand – Applies to all offences including under BNS 2023 [Paras 46–58].

Constitutional Law – Grounds of Arrest – Article 22(1) Violation – Arrest declared illegal if grounds not furnished in writing – mandatory communication of grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 BNSS 2023 (formerly Section 50 CrPC 1973) – Supreme Court holds that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right and must be meaningfully communicated in writing in the language understood by the arrestee – Oral communication deemed insufficient, except in limited exigent circumstances, where delay in furnishing written grounds must be justified and completed at least two hours before production for remand – Held: Arrest and remand without such compliance are illegal [Paras 2, 7, 33–36, 39–41, 46, 49–55].

Procedure for Arrest – Mode and Timing of Communication – Arrest in Exceptional Situations – Supreme Court clarifies that written grounds of arrest must be furnished to arrestee in all cases, including offences under BNS 2023 (formerly IPC 1860), UAPA, PMLA, or other statutes – Exception carved out for flagrant arrests during commission of crime or in exigent circumstances – In such cases, oral communication at the time of arrest permitted, but written grounds must be furnished within a reasonable time, and in no case later than two hours before production before magistrate for remand – Remand papers must include such grounds and note cause for any delay – Held: This framework balances fundamental rights and law enforcement needs [Paras 7, 41, 48–54].

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 and 22 – Personal Liberty and Legal Aid – Right to legal representation and to oppose remand must be made effective by timely communication of grounds of arrest – Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of early access to legal assistance and meaningful opportunity to contest arrest – Cites Suhas Chakma and Ashok v. State of U.P. for reinforcing right to legal aid at pre-remand stage – Communication in a language not understood by arrestee held to defeat the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) – Arrest without such safeguards is unconstitutional [Paras 17–20, 35–38, 42–45].

Interpretation of Precedents – Harmonizing Case Law – Court harmonizes earlier judgments – Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, and Vihaan Kumar – Holds that while earlier decisions dealt with special statutes (UAPA, PMLA), the principle of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing applies universally, including to BNS 2023 – Clarifies that Article 22(1) is not offence-specific – Held: Earlier inconsistent High Court views not good law [Paras 9–13, 22–27, 56–58].

Police Powers and Duties – Arrest Procedure – Statutory Compliance under BNSS 2023 – Sections 47 and 48 BNSS mandate informing arrestee and their relatives about the arrest and grounds thereof – Court directs that these duties be recorded in station diary – Magistrates must satisfy themselves that these safeguards have been followed – Emphasizes purpose behind these provisions is to protect liberty, avoid arbitrariness, and reduce custodial abuse – Held: Violation of these procedural duties renders arrest and remand void [Paras 19–21, 47].

Impact of Arrest – Social and Psychological Consequences – Supreme Court acknowledges the deep psychological and societal stigma of arrest – Arrest causes irreversible reputational damage and mental health deterioration – Cites Arnesh Kumar and Joginder Kumar to reinforce that arrest is not to be made mechanically – Held: Arrest powers must be exercised cautiously, keeping in view the consequences and the requirement to inform the arrested person meaningfully [Paras 28–31].

Decision:

– Criminal Appeal No. 2195 of 2025 disposed of, as issue of law has been settled – Appeal not entertained on merits [Para 59]

– Ad interim bail granted in Criminal Appeals No. 2189 & 2190 of 2025 to continue – Liberty to prosecution to seek remand after supply of written grounds [Para 60]

– Ad interim bail in SLP (Crl.) No. 8704 of 2025 to continue – Matter to be listed before appropriate bench [Para 63]

– Registry directed to circulate this judgment to Registrar Generals of all High Courts and Chief Secretaries of States/UTs [Para 65]