Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Insufficient Evidence for Abetment – The appellants, senior officers of Hindustan Lever Ltd., were accused of harassing the deceased, Rajeev Jain, by coercing him into accepting a voluntary retirement scheme. The deceased allegedly committed suicide following a meeting where he was humiliated. The Supreme Court held that there was no direct or proximate incitement by the appellants to drive the deceased to suicide. Mere workplace pressure or demotion does not constitute abetment unless it directly instigates the act of suicide. The appeal was allowed, and the criminal proceedings were quashed [Paras 6-10, 16].

Application of Section 306 IPC – Requirements of Instigation or Conspiracy – The Court emphasized that to convict someone under Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence of instigation or conspiracy leading to suicide. General workplace disagreements or negative performance feedback do not meet the legal threshold for abetment of suicide [Paras 12-15].

Abuse of Process – Quashing of Proceedings – The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution was an abuse of legal process as no clear mens rea for abetment of suicide was demonstrated by the prosecution. The proceedings against the appellants were quashed as they would lead to unnecessary harassment without a plausible link between the appellants' actions and the suicide [Paras 19-21].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings against the appellants quashed.

Conviction – Fresh Hearing by Successor Judge – Section 235 Cr.P.C. – The appellant contended that the new Presiding Officer was required to re-hear the case on the question of conviction after the transfer of the original judge – Supreme Court held: The successor judge is only required to hear the accused on the question of sentence under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C., not on conviction, as the judgment of conviction had already been finalized – The High Court's decision was upheld [Paras 6-16].

Transfer of Presiding Officer – No Rehearing on Conviction – Once the judgment of conviction is pronounced under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., the court becomes functus officio with respect to the conviction – The new Presiding Officer was correct in only hearing the appellant on the quantum of sentence, as per Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. – The appellant’s plea for a fresh hearing on conviction was rejected as misconceived [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The new Presiding Officer is directed to hear the appellant on the question of sentence within one month from the date of this order – Appellant is directed to surrender before the Trial Court on 04/11/2024 for compliance [Paras 19-22].

Criminal Procedure – Successor Judge’s Role Post Conviction – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant sought a re-hearing of his case on the question of conviction by the successor judge after the original judge who convicted him was transferred – Held: Once a judgment of conviction is pronounced, the Trial Court becomes functus officio regarding conviction under Section 235(1) CrPC; only the hearing on the sentence remains under Section 235(2) CrPC, which the successor judge is authorized to conduct – The High Court rightly directed the successor judge to hear the appellant on sentencing alone – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-16].

Scope of Section 235 CrPC – Two Components of Judgment – Conviction Finalized; Separate Order on Sentence Required – Under Section 235 CrPC, a judgment of conviction involves two stages: (i) judgment on conviction, and (ii) separate hearing on sentence – Once conviction is pronounced, the judge’s role on conviction ends, but the convicted individual has the right to be heard on the quantum of sentence – This right can be exercised before a successor judge if the original judge is unavailable – High Court correctly upheld this procedural interpretation, allowing only sentencing to be heard by the new judge [Para 12].

Procedural Compliance under Sections 353 and 354 CrPC – Judgment Pronounced by Original Judge Valid – The appellant argued that the conviction judgment did not comply with Sections 353 and 354 CrPC as it was delivered by a judge who was later transferred – Held: The original judgment was pronounced in open court, in the presence of appellant’s counsel, fulfilling the requirements of Sections 353 and 354 CrPC – The judgment was therefore valid and binding, and the successor judge was not required to re-hear on conviction – High Court’s order upheld [Paras 17-18].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – The conviction judgment is upheld, and the successor judge is directed to proceed with the sentencing hearing as mandated under Section 235(2) CrPC. The appellant is ordered to appear before the Trial Court for sentencing.

Quashing of FIR – Post-Divorce Proceedings – Section 498-A, IPC – Quashing Allowed – The appellants, former in-laws of the second respondent (complainant), sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the complainant has since remarried and is residing in Austria. The Supreme Court held that continuing the criminal proceedings would not serve the interests of justice, as the complainant has moved on with her life, and the appellants are also settled abroad. The FIR, charge-sheet, and all subsequent proceedings against the appellants were quashed in the exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 13-18].

Effect of Settlement and Divorce on Criminal Proceedings – Initial complaints by the second respondent against the appellants were closed based on an amicable settlement in 2015. However, a second complaint was filed within months, leading to an FIR and charge-sheet. Considering the subsequent divorce between the complainant and her former husband and her remarriage, the Court observed that the continuation of proceedings against the appellants, who were only related by marriage, would lead to unnecessary hardship and trauma [Paras 3-7].

Application of Article 142 – Closure of Proceedings in Matrimonial Disputes – The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to quash proceedings in view of the complainant's remarriage and relocation to Austria. Citing similar judgments in Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Arun Jain vs. State of NCT of Delhi, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by continuing with the trial, which could instead lead to unnecessary inconvenience for both parties [Paras 15-18].

Decision:

The appeal is allowed, and the complaint, FIR dated 28.09.2015, charge-sheet dated 20.03.2016, and all subsequent proceedings against the appellants are quashed. The Court clarified that the case against the complainant’s former husband would proceed independently, and no opinion was expressed on its merits.

Bail Application – Grant of Bail – Sections 377, 498A IPC and Sections 66E, 67A IT Act – Bail Granted - The appellant, who had been incarcerated for nearly one year, was involved in a case filed after a divorce petition, with allegations related to electronic files disputed by him. He sought bail pending trial on charges under Sections 377, 498A, 506, and 34 of the IPC and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act. Considering the period of incarceration, the court allowed the bail with conditions, including passport submission and a prohibition on contacting the informant/complainant. Violation of any conditions would result in bail cancellation [Paras 2-5].

Identity Protection – Suppression of Informant's Name – Granted - The identity of the informant/complainant, who is respondent No. 2, will be protected, and her name will be deleted from all court documents, with the original record kept in a sealed cover. The application for identity suppression was allowed [Paras 1, 6].

Appeal Outcome – Bail Granted - The appeal was allowed in terms of the signed order, and the appellant was released on bail pending the trial, with specific conditions related to contact restrictions, social media activity, and submission of travel documents [Para 8].

Civil Law – Redevelopment Scheme – Dispute Over Rent and Dues – Developer's Obligations – The respondents (tenants) approached the Bombay High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the developers (petitioners) to pay outstanding rent and complete the redevelopment of Chunawala Building as per a scheme sanctioned by the Maharashtra Government. The High Court issued interim directions, asking the petitioners to deposit ₹1.20 crores. The petitioners challenged this order, claiming that the amount due was only ₹1,77,236, not ₹1.20 crores [Paras 2-5].

Jurisdiction of MHADA – Competency to Resolve Disputed Facts – The Supreme Court held that the disputed facts concerning rent payment and the outstanding amount should be resolved by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), as it is the competent authority. The Court directed MHADA to take an appropriate decision within four weeks after hearing both parties [Paras 6-9].

Settlement Between Parties – Partial Resolution – The Court was informed that two of the private respondents had settled their disputes with the petitioners, leaving only 13 respondents in the case. The Court directed the petitioners to pay ₹1,77,236, which they admitted to owing, to the private respondents within two weeks [Para 10].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The Bombay High Court's proceedings in Writ Petition No. 126 of 2023 and the interim order were disposed of, with directions to MHADA to decide the outstanding amount due and ensure the redevelopment scheme is implemented as per the NOC.

Criminal Law - Further Investigation – Scope of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – High Court’s Jurisdiction to Direct Further Investigation Post-Trial – Application of Legal Principles – The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's direction for further investigation was legally justified, especially after the trial court had already rejected an application for summoning witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Held: The High Court erred in ordering further investigation, as no new evidence was provided to justify such a direction, and the order was inconsistent with established legal principles on further investigation [Paras 83, 20, 47, 13].

Delayed Application for Further Investigation – Post-cognizance Stage – The Court emphasized that further investigation cannot be ordered at the post-cognizance stage merely to fill lacunae in the prosecution’s case or delay the proceedings, especially when arguments had concluded, and no substantial new evidence had surfaced – Held: The application for further investigation, filed nearly six years after the charge sheet, was dismissed as unwarranted and filed for delay [Paras 13, 45, 83].

Power of Magistrates – Judicial Discretion in Further Investigation – The Court reaffirmed that the power to order further investigation under Section 173(8) is a discretionary power, to be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases where justice demands it. The High Court’s order lacked sufficient reasoning to justify its decision – Held: The High Court's order for further investigation was set aside [Paras 41, 45, 762].

Finality of Proceedings – Reopening of Investigation – Revisional Jurisdiction – The Court underscored that revisional courts should not interfere with trial court orders without solid legal grounds, particularly when proceedings have reached an advanced stage – Held: The High Court’s interference in the trial court’s decision rejecting the Section 311 Cr.P.C. application was unjustified [Paras 41, 762].

Decision: The appeal is allowed, the High Court’s judgment is set aside, and the application for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is dismissed. The additional charge sheet will not be taken on record, and the trial court is directed to conclude the trial and pronounce the judgment within eight weeks [Paras 83, 20, 13].

Service Law - Seniority Determination – Semi-Skilled vs Skilled Grade – Application of Trade Test and Probation – The appellant contested his placement in the seniority list issued by the Engine Factory Avadi, Chennai, claiming it should be based on the merit list during initial appointment rather than on the completion of probation and passing of a trade test – Held: The appellant’s seniority must be determined based on his promotion to the skilled grade and not from his initial appointment in the semi-skilled grade, in accordance with SRO No. 185 of 1994 and the Government Order dated 24th December 2002 [Paras 33, 45, 52].

Promotion and Probation – Delayed Completion of Probation – The Court upheld the factory’s practice of assigning seniority based on the date of promotion to the skilled grade, especially when the appellant had delayed completing his probation and trade test, thus justifying his placement below the private respondents, who completed these steps earlier – Held: The appellant’s failure to complete the probation within the stipulated period led to his lower seniority ranking [Paras 52, 45, 7].

Effect of Later Government Orders – Prospective vs. Retrospective Application – The appellant sought to rely on a 2015 Government Order to challenge his seniority – Held: The Government Order dated 4th August 2015 was not applicable retrospectively, and the seniority must be governed by the rules in force at the relevant time, including the GO of 2002 – The retrospective application of the 2015 Order would disrupt settled seniority lists and was therefore rejected [Paras 33, 11].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit. The appellant’s seniority is to be reckoned from his promotion to the skilled grade, and the Government Order of 2015 does not apply retrospectively. The order of the High Court is affirmed [Paras 52, 7, 45].

Education Law – Admission Delay – Petitioner, a meritorious student from the Scheduled Caste category, secured a rank of 1455 in JEE (Advanced) 2024 and was allotted a seat in IIT Dhanbad for B.Tech in Electrical Engineering – Due to technical issues, his payment and document upload failed before the portal closed – Despite multiple login attempts, his fee payment was unsuccessful, and subsequent appeals to the authorities were unfruitful – Petitioner sought legal remedy after initial attempts with High Courts, eventually approaching the Supreme Court [Paras 1-3].

Judicial Powers – Article 142 of the Constitution – Supreme Court invoked its powers to ensure substantial justice for the petitioner, recognizing his diligent efforts to comply with admission requirements – The Court acknowledged that the petitioner, being from a marginalized group, should not be denied an opportunity for reasons beyond his control – Court ordered IIT Dhanbad to admit the petitioner, create a supernumerary seat if necessary, and ensure the student is not disadvantaged due to the delayed admission [Paras 4-5].

Relief Granted – Admission Ordered – Petitioner to be admitted to IIT Dhanbad in the allocated course and batch – A supernumerary seat to be created if required – Petitioner to pay the pending fees upon admission and be granted all consequential benefits, including hostel accommodation – IIT Dhanbad directed to assist the petitioner in catching up with missed coursework to avoid academic disadvantage [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Petition disposed of with directions for immediate admission – Court ensures no disruption to current students and the petitioner’s timely integration into the academic program.