Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Ingredients for Prosecution – Section 306 IPC – Appeal challenging charges for abetment to suicide due to alleged harassment by appellants – Appellants contended lack of proximate cause and intent – Held: The charges under Section 306 IPC require proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or aiding suicide, coupled with mens rea – Mere harassment without proximate instigation cannot sustain prosecution – Time gap of over a month between alleged instigation and suicide broke the nexus, negating abetment charges [Paras 12-14, 30-34].

Mens Rea and Proximity – Essential for Section 306 IPC – Court reiterated that abetment to suicide requires a positive act of instigation or aiding, with intent discernible on the face of the record – Proximity between the alleged act and suicide is crucial to establish the link – In this case, the time gap and intervening events nullified proximity, rendering the allegations unsustainable [Paras 19-22, 34].

Delay in Filing FIR – Impact on Credibility – The FIR filed five days post-incident introduced claims absent in the immediate Accidental Death Report – Court held such delay and inconsistency diminish credibility of allegations – Discrepancies regarding the date of mahalokadalat further weakened the prosecution case [Paras 6, 35-36].

Harassment Without Provocation – Alleged harassment of the deceased by appellants did not meet the threshold for abetment, as it lacked immediate cause or compelling circumstances forcing the deceased to act – Harassment unconnected to the act of suicide cannot substantiate charges under Section 306 IPC [Paras 23-24].

Judicial Oversight – Abuse of Process – Prosecution’s inability to establish prima facie evidence for abetment led the Court to discharge appellants – Observed continuation of proceedings without sufficient cause would amount to abuse of law [Para 37].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Orders of the High Court and trial court quashed – Appellants discharged from Sessions Case No. 75 of 2015 – Bail bonds, if any, cancelled [Paras 38-39].

Transfer of Property Act – Protection Under Section 53-A – Prerequisites Unmet – The defendants sought protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act based on an unregistered sale agreement and possession – Held: Protection under Section 53-A is available only when the transferee fulfills all conditions, including written contract, part performance, and readiness to perform contractual obligations – Defendants failed to prove execution of the sale agreement or part performance, making the claim untenable [Paras 10-14].

Specific Relief Act – Readiness and Willingness to Perform Contractual Obligations – Mandatory Compliance – Defendants did not establish compliance with Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, which requires proof of readiness and willingness to perform contractual obligations – Their claim for part performance was thus unsustainable [Paras 10-13].

Judicial Review – No Substantial Question of Law – The High Court rightly dismissed the second appeal for lack of a substantial question of law, affirming concurrent findings of the Trial and First Appellate Courts [Paras 8-9].

Decision: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The dismissal by the High Court of the claim under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act was upheld.

Civil Law - Limitation Act – Suit for Possession – Applicability of Article 58 vs. Article 65 – Suit originally filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction – Amendment at appellate stage to include recovery of possession – Appellants argued that the suit was barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act (three years from when the right to sue first accrued) – Held: The relief for possession is governed by Article 65, which allows a 12-year limitation period when possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff – Appellants did not plead or prove adverse possession – Suit not barred by limitation [Paras 10-18, 21, 31-32, 39].

Amendment of Pleadings – Doctrine of Relation Back – Plaintiff amended plaint during first appeal to include recovery of possession – Appellate court allowed the amendment – Held: Amendment of pleadings relates back to the date of the original suit unless directed otherwise – Appellate courts have the same powers as trial courts to allow amendments for effective adjudication – No mala fides or prejudice found in the amendment – Amendment was necessary to resolve the dispute and did not change the nature of the suit [Paras 23-30, 39].

Possession and Title – Adverse Possession Not Proved – Title of plaintiff established by concurrent findings of all courts – Appellants in possession since 1981-82 but failed to plead or prove adverse possession – Mere possession without hostile intent or overt acts does not constitute adverse possession – Plaintiff entitled to possession based on title [Paras 9, 18, 21, 31, 33-38].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court and First Appellate Court judgments upheld – Plaintiff’s suit for possession, based on title, held to be within the limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act – Appellants directed to hand over possession of the suit property [Paras 31, 39].
 

Criminal Law - Cruelty Allegations – Vague and Omnibus Statements – FIR Quashed - The appellants (parents-in-law) were accused of subjecting the complainant to mental and physical cruelty for failing to produce a male child – Allegations lacked specific instances or precise details – Held: Vague and omnibus statements, without particularized evidence, cannot sustain criminal prosecution under Section 498-A IPC, following judicial precedents [Paras 16-20, 21-23].

Forced Miscarriage – Insufficient Evidence – Allegation Unsubstantiated - Complainant accused the appellants of coercing her to consume poisoned food, leading to a miscarriage – Medical evidence indicated miscarriage due to abortion pills but failed to establish that the pills were administered by the appellants – Held: FIR and evidence did not disclose sufficient material for offences under Sections 312 and 313 IPC against the appellants [Paras 24-30].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Impact on Credibility – Ulterior Motive Inferred - The FIR was lodged in 2018, almost two years after the alleged incident in 2016 – Delay attributed to reluctance to spoil marital relations, despite divorce proceedings being initiated earlier – Held: Delay and absence of allegations in the divorce notice indicated mala fide intent to pressure the appellants during personal discord [Paras 31-32].

Misuse of Section 498-A IPC – Matrimonial Disputes - Highlighted the increasing misuse of Section 498-A IPC in matrimonial conflicts – Reiterated the need for caution in prosecuting vague allegations to prevent harassment of innocent family members and avoid abuse of legal provisions [Paras 33-34].

Scope of High Court’s Power Under Section 482 CrPC – Bhajan Lal Principles Applied - High Court’s refusal to quash proceedings was erroneous – Held: Allegations did not meet prima facie standards required under the Bhajan Lal guidelines for sustaining criminal prosecution – High Court should have exercised inherent powers to quash the FIR [Paras 28-36].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court judgment quashed – FIR No. 339 of 2018 and all subsequent proceedings quashed [Paras 37-38].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Reference Court’s Award Restored – The appellants challenged the High Court’s decision, which reduced compensation awarded by the Reference Court for acquired land, asserting misalignment with sale exemplars and commercial potentiality – Held: The High Court erred in its assessment by undervaluing the land – The Reference Court’s evaluation, based on available sale deeds and potential land value, was restored [Paras 3-4].

Binding Precedent – Earlier Judgment Applicable – The Supreme Court previously adjudicated the same issue in Horrmal (since deceased) v. State of Haryana concerning land acquisition in the same area – The principles and compensation determined in that case were directly applied, ensuring consistency in awards for identical acquisitions [Paras 3-4].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The High Court’s judgment was set aside, and the Reference Court’s award reinstated with all statutory benefits, including interest, to be paid within eight weeks [Para 5].

Civil Writ - PIL - Judicial Review – Public Contracts – Excessive Delegation Invalidated – Articles 13 and 14 of the Concession Agreement, allowing NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Ltd. to levy toll, were held invalid for violating public policy – Held: Power to levy fees or toll cannot be delegated to private entities as per the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976; only the collection of fees may be delegated [Paras 42-50].

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability and Delay – Continuous Cause of Action – The PIL filed after 15 years of the Concession Agreement was held maintainable due to continuous public injury and absence of clear disclosure of toll recoveries – Held: Delay in filing a public interest matter does not preclude maintainability where public welfare is at stake [Paras 16-21].

Reasonableness of Toll Policy – Violation of Public Policy – Perpetual Recovery of Costs – Formula in the Concession Agreement led to perpetual recovery of escalating project costs, extending the concession period indefinitely – Held: The agreement imposed an undue burden on public commuters and failed to align with the principles of equity and public trust [Paras 53-65].

Role of the State – Responsibility in Public-Private Partnerships – Lack of Transparency – Selection of NTBCL without competitive bidding and delegation of financial oversight to private stakeholders highlighted misuse of power – Held: Actions violated Article 14, mandating fairness and equality in public governance [Paras 30-40].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The High Court's judgment prohibiting the collection of toll and severing Articles 13 and 14 from the Concession Agreement was upheld. NTBCL was directed to cease toll collection immediately.
 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Lack of Prima Facie Case – Appellant (Accused No.13) sought discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. from charges under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act – Sole evidence against the appellant was the confession statement of a co-accused (Accused No.1) – Held: Confessional statement of a co-accused is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and cannot form the basis for framing charges – No other evidence linked the appellant to the offense – Dismissal of discharge application by the Trial Court and High Court was improper – Appellant discharged [Paras 7, 9-12, 14].
Confession of Co-Accused – Inadmissibility – No Prima Facie Case for Trial – The appellant was arraigned under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act based solely on the confession of a co-accused – Held: Confession of a co-accused cannot form the sole basis for framing charges against another accused. In the absence of corroborative material or evidence, there was no prima facie case to proceed against the appellant [Paras 12-14, 23-24].

Scope of Section 227, Cr.P.C. – Discharge in Absence of Grave Suspicion – At the stage of discharge, the judge must sift evidence to assess if a grave suspicion exists against the accused – Mere suspicion, unsupported by admissible evidence, does not justify subjecting the accused to trial [Paras 11-15, 20-22].

NDPS Act – Proof Beyond Suspicion Required – In cases under the NDPS Act, strong and corroborated material evidence is necessary due to the stringent nature of penalties – Confession unsupported by medical examination or recovery of contraband is insufficient to frame charges [Paras 18-19].

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The orders of the High Court and the Additional District Judge-Special Court were set aside. The appellant (Accused No. 13) was discharged from CC No. 43 of 2020.
 

Family Law - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Grant of Divorce under Article 142(1) – The Court dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, citing irretrievable breakdown of marriage – The marriage was marred by multiple litigations, allegations of cruelty, and false criminal complaints – Held: The marriage had become emotionally dead and unworkable – Divorce granted under Article 142(1), balancing equities, including permanent alimony to the petitioner [Paras 9.10, 9.15-9.16, 12].

Transfer Petition – Section 25 CPC – Adjudication of Alimony – The Court transferred the divorce petition from Bhopal to Pune for adjudication limited to determining alimony – Alimony fixed at ₹2 lakhs per month or ₹10 crores in lump sum, considering the respondent’s financial status, marriage duration, and circumstances [Para 3.10, 3.13].

Misuse of Criminal Law – Effect on Marital Relationship – The petitioner’s filing of false criminal cases under Sections 498A, 376, and 377 IPC, Look Out Circulars, and arrest of the respondent irreparably fractured the marriage – Such actions amounted to cruelty against the respondent [Paras 9.9, 10].

Exercise of Article 142(1) – Complete Justice Achieved – Broad powers under Article 142(1) were used to dissolve the marriage and provide equitable relief – Held: Prolonged litigation and acrimony necessitated this decision – Relief included permanent alimony balancing fairness for both parties [Paras 9.16, 10].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Marriage dissolved under Article 142(1) – Alimony to be determined by the Family Court at Pune.

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Mental Cruelty – Filing False Complaints – Section 13(1)(ia), HMA – Divorce Granted – The High Court held that the appellant-wife’s act of filing a false dowry harassment complaint against the respondent-husband and his family, later abandoned, amounted to mental cruelty – Prolonged separation of over 15 years demonstrated an irretrievable breakdown of marriage – Held: Filing false complaints with intent to harass constitutes cruelty, justifying dissolution of marriage – Decision: Decree of divorce granted; appeal dismissed; permanent alimony awarded to the appellant and daughter [Paras 8, 10, 14-16, 27-29, 41].

Desertion – Prolonged Separation – Section 13(1)(ib), HMA – Divorce Granted – The High Court concluded that the appellant’s prolonged separation without reasonable cause and lack of interest in reconciliation amounted to desertion – Held: Willful abandonment of matrimonial obligations constitutes desertion, justifying divorce – Decision: Marriage dissolved due to desertion; permanent alimony granted [Paras 11, 13, 30-33, 40].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Prolonged Separation – Article 142 of the Constitution – Relief Granted – The Court acknowledged the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage due to 20 years of separation, during which reconciliation efforts failed – Held: While not a statutory ground, irretrievable breakdown justifies dissolution of a marriage when continuation would only perpetuate distress – Decision: Marriage declared irretrievably broken; divorce decree upheld; permanent alimony granted [Paras 30-33, 41].

Jurisdiction of High Court – Section 100, CPC – Substantial Question of Law – High Court’s Interference Justified – The High Court reversed concurrent findings of the lower courts by addressing substantial questions of law related to the appellant’s conduct and the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage – Held: Such interference is permissible under Section 100, CPC – Decision: High Court’s jurisdiction upheld; divorce decree maintained [Paras 6-8, 17-18, 23].

Permanent Alimony – Financial Independence and Dignity – Alimony Awarded – The Court directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs. 50,00,000/- as permanent alimony to the appellant-wife and an additional Rs. 50,00,000/- for the education and future expenses of their daughter – Held: Alimony ensures financial stability and dignity, safeguarding the rights of dependents post-divorce – Decision: Permanent alimony of Rs. 1 crore awarded to appellant and daughter; payments to be made within four months [Paras 36-40, 41].