Criminal Procedure – Applicability of Section 256 Cr. PC – Not every absence of complainant leads to acquittal – Restoration of complaint justified – The appellant’s complaint was dismissed for default by the Magistrate during the pandemic despite restrictions and interim stay from the High Court – The Sessions Judge correctly restored the complaint, noting absence of accused on the said date and violation of SoP – The High Court’s interference was erroneous as it misapplied Section 256 Cr. PC and wrongly treated the Sessions Court as sitting in appeal over the High Court – Held: Restoration of complaint proper, dismissal for default was unsustainable [Paras 14-22].

Section 256 Cr. PC – Purpose of date fixed is material – Only absence of complainant on a date fixed for appearance of accused triggers acquittal – Here, date was fixed only for show cause and not for appearance of accused – Respondents themselves were absent – Hence, Section 256 did not warrant acquittal – Observation of the High Court in CRR No.

2327/2018 was flawed – Sessions Judge’s order restoring the complaint was correct [Paras 18-20].

Judicial Discipline – Revisional Court not barred from setting aside order dismissing complaint – Earlier High Court observation was not binding as it was per incuriam – The Sessions Judge rightly exercised revisional jurisdiction – The High Court erred in quashing the Sessions Court order on the ground of judicial discipline [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Complaint restored – Order dated 15^th July, 2024 set aside – CRR No. 2327/2018 revived for fresh adjudication by High Court – Magistrate to proceed with complaint subject to outcome of CRR No. 2327/2018 [Paras 23-26].

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Preliminary Stage of Investigation – Permissibility of High Court Interference – High Court declined to quash FIR observing that investigation was at infancy stage and liberty was granted to produce documents before the investigating agency – Held: Such approach is unheard of and mechanical – Court is duty-bound to examine the plea for quashing on merits even at the preliminary stage – Mechanical refusal to quash without considering the merits amounts to miscarriage of justice.

High Court's Approach – Requirement to Apply Mind on Merits – Petition restored – Supreme Court found that High Court failed to consider the petition for quashing of FIR on merits – Held: Petition restored to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits without being influenced by previous observations.

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Impugned order set aside – Criminal O.P. No. 7963 of 2024 restored to file of the Madras High Court to be considered afresh on 24th March 2025 – All questions left open for the High Court to decide.

Civil Law – Auction - Lease Agreement – No Transfer of Ownership Without Execution of Lease – Leasehold Rights Never Created – The agreement to lease dated 17th July 1957 did not create any right, title, or interest in favor of M/s Mehta Constructions until a formal lease deed was executed – Since no lease was executed, M/s Mehta Constructions had no transferrable interest in the plot – Any subsequent transfers, including the auction sale, did not confer ownership or leasehold rights to the respondents [Paras 7-8, 11].

Auction Sale in Liquidation – Property Sold on "As-Is Basis" – No Right to Title or Leasehold Interest – The auction sale in liquidation proceedings conveyed only whatever rights the original lessee had – Since M/s Mehta Constructions never acquired a valid leasehold interest, the auction purchaser (first respondent) could not claim ownership or lessee rights over the plot – The High Court correctly held that the auction sale did not amount to a valid transfer of the property [Paras 12-14].

Nazul Land – Requirement of Government Approval for Transfer – Violation of Rules – The plot in question was Nazul land, which belongs to the Union of India and is managed by the DDA – As per Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, and Rule 43 of the 1981 Rules, the lessor's prior consent was mandatory for any transfer – Since no such consent was obtained, the transfer was illegal and could not confer any legal rights to the respondents [Paras 5, 11, 14].

Judicial Review – No Interference with High Court Decision – Remedy Available for DDA – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, noting that the auction sale was only for the transfer of whatever rights existed under the lease agreement, which were non-existent – However, the Court clarified that the DDA retains the right to pursue appropriate legal remedies for recovery of possession or unearned income from the respondents if required [Paras 14-16].

Liquidation Proceedings – Conflicting Claims on Sale Proceeds – No Direction for Payment of Unearned Income – The Provisional Liquidator confirmed that substantial amounts from the auction sale were invested in fixed deposits – However, multiple claims exceeding ₹60 crores were pending against the liquidated company – The Supreme Court ruled that it was inappropriate to direct any portion of the available funds to be used for payment of unearned income to DDA, leaving it to the Company Court’s discretion [Paras 9-10, 13].

Decision – Supreme Court Dismisses DDA’s Appeal – No Right to Ownership for Respondents – Remedy Available for DDA – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the first respondent does not acquire ownership or leasehold rights in the said plot – The DDA retains the right to initiate legal action for recovery of possession and unearned income if it so chooses – The first respondent may apply to DDA for regularization of the transaction, subject to legal compliance and payment of necessary dues [Paras 14-16].
 

Employment Law - Cancellation of Recruitment Process – Right to Appointment – No Indefeasible Right – Cancellation Justified – The mere inclusion of candidates in a selection list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment – The government retains the discretion to cancel the recruitment process if found irregular, provided the decision is bona fide – The decision to cancel the select list was not arbitrary but based on valid concerns regarding reservation policy violations and district-wise representation anomalies [Paras 24-27, 42].

Judicial Review – Scope – Wednesbury Unreasonableness and Proportionality Test – Courts should not interfere with administrative decisions unless they are arbitrary, mala fide, or violative of constitutional principles – The decision to cancel the recruitment process was a proportionate response to the irregularities found, making interference unwarranted – High Court erred in acting as an appellate authority rather than applying judicial review principles [Paras 22-26, 37-42].

Reservation Policy – Non-Compliance – Justification for Cancellation – The selection process failed to adhere to the reservation policy – Meritorious candidates from reserved categories were not accommodated in the general category, leading to deprivation of rightful candidates – This violated established legal precedents and justified government intervention [Paras 31-33].

Successor Government’s Authority – Cancellation of Prior Government’s Decisions – A successor government has the right to review and cancel recruitment processes initiated by the previous administration if irregularities are found – This does not amount to arbitrary action but ensures fairness in public employment – The Court upheld the government’s discretion in this case [Paras 36-37].

Relief Granted – Fresh Recruitment to be Conducted – Age Relaxation for Affected Candidates – The Court directed the government to conduct a fresh recruitment process with proper rules or administrative instructions – Affected candidates were granted age relaxation and minor physical efficiency relaxations under Article 142 to ensure fairness [Paras 63-65].

Decision – Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Ruling – Government’s Cancellation of Recruitment Process Upheld – The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Gauhati High Court, ruling that the government’s decision to cancel the recruitment process was justified – The process was found to be tainted with irregularities and non-compliance with reservation policies – The government was directed to conduct a fresh recruitment process with due fairness and transparency – The respondents were granted age and minor physical efficiency relaxations under Article 142 if they chose to apply again [Paras 52-65].
 

Criminal Law – Rape Conviction – Appeal Against Conviction – Appellant convicted under Sections 376 and 323 IPC for committing rape on the prosecutrix – Trial Court sentenced him to 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC and 6 months under Section 323 IPC – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence while acquitting him under Section 506 IPC – Appeal filed before Supreme Court challenging the conviction on grounds of false implication and lack of corroborative medical evidence – Supreme Court upheld conviction, holding that the testimony of the prosecutrix was credible and trustworthy [Paras 1-6, 17].

Prosecutrix’s Testimony – Reliability and Medical Evidence – Prosecutrix alleged that the appellant forcibly raped her after gagging her mouth and overpowering her – Defence argued that medical evidence did not show injuries on private parts, discrediting the prosecution case – Supreme Court held that absence of injuries does not necessarily disprove rape, as overpowering by force can still constitute the offence – Testimony of prosecutrix found consistent, credible, and trustworthy, sufficient to sustain conviction without corroboration [Paras 7-11].

Delay in Lodging FIR – False Implication Defence – Appellant contended that delay in filing FIR raises doubts about the veracity of the allegations – Court held that the prosecutrix was threatened by the accused and her delay in reporting was justified – Defence of false implication was rejected, as no cogent evidence was provided to substantiate this claim [Paras 12-13].

Character Assassination of Prosecutrix’s Mother – Not Relevant – Appellant argued that the prosecutrix’s mother had a questionable character, implying false implication – Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the character of a third party has no bearing on the determination of the offence – Conviction must be judged independently of any moral assumptions about the victim’s family [Paras 16].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 376 and 323 IPC upheld – Sentence confirmed – State authorities directed to consider remission as per applicable policy within four weeks [Paras 17-18].
 

Criminal Law – Employer’s Liability for Workplace Accident – No Prima Facie Case Under Section 304 IPC – Appellants engaged in interior decoration work were accused of causing death by negligence after two employees were electrocuted while working on a shop signboard – Prosecution alleged lack of safety measures such as rubber shoes and belts – Trial Court and High Court refused discharge, holding that the accused had knowledge of the risks – Supreme Court held that mere failure to provide safety equipment does not amount to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC – No evidence of intention or knowledge to cause death – Appeal allowed, appellants discharged [Paras 1-7, 12-16].

Applicability of Section 304A IPC – Purely Accidental Death Not Attributable to Criminal Negligence – Supreme Court analyzed the definition of culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC and noted that for Section 304 Part II IPC to apply, there must be knowledge that the act is likely to cause death – Held: No evidence suggested that the accused had such knowledge – Incident was an unfortunate accident, and prosecution’s reliance on Section 304A IPC was misplaced – No prima facie case made out even for criminal negligence [Paras 13-17].

Discharge Under Section 227 CrPC – Lack of Sufficient Grounds for Trial – Court reiterated that at the discharge stage, there must be sufficient material to justify launching a criminal trial – Held: There was no overt act or direct negligence on part of appellants – Criminal proceedings would be unjustified – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the discharge applications [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of Trial Court and High Court set aside – Appellants discharged from Sessions Case No. 749 of 2014 – No further proceedings against them .

Civil Law – Title and Possession – Injunction Suit Against Encroachment – Appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction against respondents, claiming ownership of land through a registered sale deed dated 23.08.1988 – Respondents contended that a portion of land (1¼ cents) remained with the original owner and was later settled in favor of the Gram Panchayat – Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the disputed portion fell outside the plaintiff’s sale deed – First Appellate Court reversed the decision, finding that the defendants failed to establish their claim under a valid settlement deed – High Court, in second appeal, set aside the decree on the ground that the suit was not framed for declaration of title – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reappreciating findings of fact under Section 100 CPC and restored the decree in favor of the plaintiff [Paras 2-6, 12].

Title and Ownership – Importance of Boundaries in Sale Deed – Appellant relied on the sale deed (Exhibit-A1) and Commissioner’s Report to establish ownership – Supreme Court noted that the sale deed clearly described the boundaries, and no portion was retained by the original owner – Defendants failed to produce a legally valid document proving that the disputed portion was settled in favor of the Panchayat – High Court wrongly disregarded the First Appellate Court’s findings and failed to appreciate that the defendants’ documents (Exhibits-B1 to B8) did not convey legal ownership to the Panchayat [Paras 7-11].

Second Appeal – Scope Under Section 100 CPC – Supreme Court reiterated that a High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a substantial question of law – The High Court erred by reappreciating evidence and reversing well-reasoned factual conclusions of the First Appellate Court – The absence of a declaration prayer was not raised before the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court and could not be a ground for non-suiting the plaintiff at the second appellate stage [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal (MD) No. 437 of 2010 set aside – Decree of the First Appellate Court restored – No order as to costs [Para 12].
 

Criminal Law – Bail Granted for Examination Fraud – State’s Appeal Against Bail – Respondents accused of engaging in a recruitment examination fraud by arranging a dummy candidate – Trial Court denied bail, citing serious disruption to the public examination system – Rajasthan High Court granted bail on grounds of lack of criminal antecedents, absence of appointments based on the exam, and completion of investigation – Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider the broader impact on society and quashed the bail order [Paras 1-6, 9-12].

Impact on Public Trust in Recruitment Process – Court emphasized that fraudulent practices in government recruitment exams erode public confidence – Given the high competition for government jobs, any compromise in exam integrity affects thousands of candidates – Held: Actions of the accused, if proven, undermine faith in the system and warrant stricter judicial scrutiny [Paras 10-11].

Principles for Setting Aside Bail Orders – Supreme Court distinguished between cancellation of bail (requiring supervening circumstances) and setting aside an erroneous bail order – Cited precedents where bail was revoked due to failure of courts to consider relevant factors – Held: High Court erred in granting bail without appreciating the gravity of the offence and its societal impact [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Bail order set aside – Respondents directed to surrender within two weeks – Liberty granted to reapply for bail after key prosecution witnesses are examined – Pending applications, if any, disposed of [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Appeal Against Conviction – Appellant (Enforcement Inspector) convicted under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe for processing a trade license – Trial Court sentenced him to 1-year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) and 6 months rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 – High Court upheld the conviction – Supreme Court set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-6, 16-17].

Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Failure to Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Prosecution relied on the testimony of the complainant (PW5) and trap witnesses – Inconsistencies found in the complainant’s statement before the magistrate under Section 164 CrPC and his deposition in court – Independent witnesses (PW1 and PW2) turned hostile and did not confirm the bribe demand – Prosecution relied on the recovery of tainted money, but defence argued that the money was thrust upon the accused – Supreme Court held that mere recovery of money is insufficient to prove bribery without proving demand and acceptance [Paras 7-12].

Trap Proceedings – Reliability of Evidence – Independent witnesses did not see the alleged transaction – Prosecution witnesses contradicted each other regarding whether the accused voluntarily accepted the money – Defence contended that money was thrown on the floor during a scuffle and was later picked up on police direction – Supreme Court found reasonable doubt in the evidence and held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be applied in the absence of clear proof of demand [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt – Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled [Paras 16-18].