Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Appeal against dismissal of petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR and subsequent chargesheet – Appellants accused under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC for alleged cruelty towards the complainant – High Court held that a prima facie case of cruelty was made out and dismissed the petition – Supreme Court examined the allegations, finding them vague and largely civil in nature – Held: Criminal proceedings were an abuse of process, instituted with mala fide intentions linked to a property dispute – FIR and chargesheet quashed [Paras 7.1, 8.1, 10.1, 13.1, 15, 18].

Matrimonial Dispute – Allegations of Dowry Demand – FIR alleged dowry demands and threats to deprive the complainant and her husband of property share – Allegations found vague and lacking material particulars – The same allegations were previously rejected in a Domestic Violence case by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalna – Complaint appeared to be motivated by a contentious civil dispute over ancestral property, furthering personal interests in the civil suit filed by the complainant’s husband [Paras 7.1, 8.1, 10.1, 15].

Abuse of Legal Process – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Color – Allegations in the FIR were overwhelmingly civil in nature, particularly concerning property rights – Appellants subjected to false and omnibus allegations, creating an undue criminal burden – Supreme Court emphasized the need to prevent abuse of criminal law in cases rooted in civil disputes – Held: Continuing with the criminal trial would amount to a travesty of justice [Paras 8.1, 10.2, 15, 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – FIR dated 25.03.2013 and chargesheet quashed – Criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC set aside [Para 18].

Criminal Law – Abduction and Murder – Acquittal – The appellants were accused of abducting and murdering Neelam in furtherance of a land dispute – Trial Court convicted five accused under Sections 302/34 and 364/34 IPC and acquitted two (A-6, A-7) – Patna High Court overturned the acquittal of A-6 and A-7, convicting them and sentencing all seven to life imprisonment – Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Neelam was abducted by the appellants or that she was residing in the house from which she was allegedly abducted – Held: All appellants acquitted, conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 1, 25, 33, 45, 67].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Eye-Witnesses – Testimonies of PW18 (informant), PW2, PW4, and PW5 deemed inconsistent and unreliable – Presence of PW5 at the scene was doubted due to his questionable route – Testimonies of PW2 and PW4 lacked a credible explanation for their presence – Key independent witnesses (Doman Tenti, Kumud Ranjan Singh, etc.) were not examined – The alleged threat with a pistol by A-6 was not corroborated, and significant contradictions were found between FIR and trial depositions – Court concluded that the prosecution fabricated witness testimonies to implicate the appellants [Paras 23-25, 40, 46, 59].

Circumstantial Evidence – Residence of the Deceased – Doubts were raised regarding whether Neelam was residing in her father’s house at the time of the abduction – No personal belongings or corroborative evidence from cohabitants were presented – Makeup articles found were insufficient proof, and their connection to the deceased was based on objectionable reasoning by the High Court – Held: Prosecution failed to establish the foundational fact of residence, undermining the entire case [Paras 34-37, 48-51].

Post-Mortem Evidence – Time of Death – Post-mortem report indicated Neelam’s death occurred around 5:00 PM, conflicting with the prosecution's claim that she was abducted around 10:00 PM – Given the unreliable eyewitnesses, the post-mortem findings were accepted as accurate – The inconsistency in time of death added to the doubts surrounding the prosecution's case [Paras 62-63].

Motive – Property Dispute – The alleged motive of abducting and murdering Neelam over a family property dispute was insufficient to establish guilt – Motive could apply to either side of the family conflict, making it a double-edged argument – The Court held that motive alone could not sustain a conviction in the absence of conclusive evidence [Paras 65-67].

Decision: Appeals allowed – All seven appellants acquitted of charges under Sections 302 and 364 IPC – They are to be released immediately if not wanted in any other cases [Para 70].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Charges under Section 307 IPC – Appellant was assaulted due to a dispute related to Waqf Board – Initial FIR lodged under Sections 294, 323, 506 read with 34 IPC – Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 307 IPC – High Court set aside charges, ruling injuries insufficient for Section 307 – Held: Minor injuries are not a bar for framing charges under Section 307 IPC if intent is present – High Court's judgment set aside, and the accused are to face trial under all relevant sections, including Section 307 IPC [Paras 1, 6, 12-16].

Medical Evidence – Relevance of Doctor’s Report – The doctor’s report suspected throttling, which could have led to respiratory arrest – Despite the injuries being described as minor, intent to cause death could be inferred from the circumstances – The court held that medical evidence of possible throttling supported the framing of Section 307 IPC charges [Paras 7, 12-13].

Section 307 IPC – Attempt to Murder – Essential ingredients include intent to kill or knowledge that the act was likely to cause death – Court emphasized that even minor injuries could suffice if the intent to kill is present – Injuries, whether simple or grievous, are irrelevant if the intent is clear – The court applied this principle to hold that the High Court erred in refusing to frame charges under Section 307 IPC [Paras 10-14].

Section 34 IPC – Common Intention – Eight accused were involved, and the court examined the applicability of Section 34 IPC – Common intention can be inferred from the actions and circumstances – The court highlighted that common intention need not be pre-arranged and could develop on the spot – The accused acted with a common purpose, making Section 34 applicable [Paras 11.4-11.5].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – High Court's order in Criminal Revision No. 3125 of 2021 set aside – Trial court directed to proceed with trial, including Section 307 IPC, without being influenced by the current judgment – Trial to be expedited [Paras 16-17].

Land Acquisition – Requisition by Ministry of Defence – Acquired Property – Appellants challenged the decision of the High Court, which directed HMT Ltd. and the Union of India to vacate or pay compensation for the unacquired portion of land – High Court awarded rental compensation with interest from 1973 till payment was made – Supreme Court held that the respondents/writ petitioners concealed material facts regarding the sale of part of the land by the original landowner – Held: Writ petition filed after 33 years without any valid explanation and concealment of facts amounted to an abuse of process [Paras 2, 4, 10, 11, 12].

Delay and Laches – Writ Petition filed after 33 years – The writ petitioners failed to justify the delay of over three decades in filing the writ petition – Supreme Court emphasized that delay can be fatal, especially when facts and evidence become difficult to ascertain over time – Held: Writ petition dismissed due to inordinate delay and laches [Paras 13, 14, 15].

Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioners' Duty to Disclose – Petitioners failed to disclose the sale of part of the land by their predecessor-in-interest – The land sold by the petitioners' predecessor had already been acquired by HMT Ltd. for expansion purposes – This fact was deliberately suppressed by the petitioners – Supreme Court reiterated that a petitioner must come with clean hands, especially in extraordinary writ jurisdiction – Held: The writ petition was liable to be dismissed for concealment and lack of bonafides [Paras 10, 11, 12].

Disputed Questions of Fact – Jurisdiction of High Court – The case involved several disputed questions of fact that were not suitable for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution – Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition given the complex factual matrix requiring thorough examination of evidence – Held: High Court judgment set aside; writ petition dismissed [Paras 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment and order dated 05.09.2019 and 13.09.2019 set aside – Writ Petition No. 16553 of 2006 dismissed – No costs imposed on respondents/writ petitioners despite their conduct [Paras 18].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – High Court allowing an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC despite the trial having commenced – Trial court rejected the amendment application on the grounds of undue delay and lack of due diligence by the plaintiff – High Court found that the amendment was necessary for the proper adjudication of the dispute, especially regarding the genuineness of the Will in question – Held: The amendment is crucial to determining the real question of controversy, and the High Court's decision to allow the amendment is affirmed [Paras 6, 7, 10, 18].

Will Dispute – Challenge to Genuineness of Will – The suit property was allegedly bequeathed to the defendant by their mother, Smt. Katoribai, through a Will executed on 14th January 2013 – The plaintiff challenged the genuineness of this Will, alleging forgery and fraud in the signatures of the deceased and witnesses – Trial court failed to frame an issue on the genuineness of the Will, leading the High Court to intervene and allow the amendment to ensure a complete adjudication on the dispute regarding the Will [Paras 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 10, 16].

Delay in Amendment – Post-Trial Commencement – The defendant argued that the plaintiff was aware of all relevant facts and filed the amendment application post the commencement of trial, violating the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC – High Court found that determining the genuineness of the Will was essential for the resolution of the dispute, and the delay did not bar the amendment – Held: The delay, though not ideal, should not obstruct justice, and the amendment is allowed [Paras 8, 9, 11.1, 17].

Principles for Amendment – Liberal Approach – Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting amendments to ensure proper adjudication of disputes, provided such amendments do not cause undue prejudice to the other party – Amendment applications should not be dismissed based solely on technical grounds like delay, especially when the amendment is necessary to resolve the real controversy – Held: No infirmity in the High Court's decision to allow the amendment as it aligns with established principles of amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC [Paras 11.1, 11.2, 14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Amendment allowed – Trial Court to decide all issues, including the genuineness of the Will, expeditiously – No opinion expressed on the merits of the case [Paras 18, 19].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Reduction of Sentence – Appellants convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for stabbing the deceased with a knife – Trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence – Supreme Court finds that the incident occurred in a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation or intent to act cruelly – Held: Conviction altered to Part-I of Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) – Sentence reduced to the period already undergone (over 8 years) [Paras 9, 13-16].

Delay in FIR – Lodging of FIR – Rahul (PW-1), the injured witness, delayed the lodging of the FIR by more than 24 hours – His explanation that he fell unconscious and was searching for deceased Sachin not found plausible – Held: Delay in FIR casts doubt on the prosecution's case – This, combined with contradictions in witness testimony, weakens the prosecution's narrative [Paras 12-13].

Witness Testimony – Contradictions – Rahul (PW-1) and Shivani (PW-2) were key prosecution witnesses – Their testimonies contained contradictions – Rahul's conduct post-incident and inconsistencies regarding whether he and deceased Sachin had consumed alcohol, affected the credibility of his statement – Shivani (PW-2) was an interested witness and her deposition conflicted with her earlier statements, raising further doubts [Paras 11-13].

Unexplained Injuries – Accused’s Injuries – Appellants Sunil @ Sonu and Nitin @ Devender sustained injuries in the same incident – Prosecution failed to explain these injuries – Medical evidence established that the appellants were injured, which supported their defense of a sudden fight and drunken altercation initiated by the deceased and Rahul (PW-1) – Held: The failure to explain these injuries supported the defense's claim and pointed towards a case of culpable homicide in the heat of passion rather than murder [Paras 13-14].

Sudden Fight – Culpable Homicide – Evidence suggested that the incident arose out of a sudden altercation without premeditation – The fight escalated in the heat of passion, leading to the fatal injury – No evidence to show the accused acted in a cruel or unusual manner or took undue advantage – Conviction under Section 302 IPC reduced to Part-I of Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part-I IPC – Sentence reduced to the period already undergone – Appellants to be released immediately if not wanted in any other case [Paras 17-18].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Identical Evidence – Principle of Parity – The appellant was convicted for facilitating the issuance of a second passport to accused No.1, while other co-accused, who faced similar charges, were acquitted – Supreme Court held: When two accused face identical or similar charges and evidence, one cannot be convicted while the other is acquitted unless there is a clear distinction in the evidence presented – Held: The conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained in light of the acquittal of other co-accused who faced similar allegations [Paras 10, 15].

Evidence – Hostile Witness – Reliability – The appellant’s conviction was partly based on the testimony of PW-3, who turned hostile during the trial – The court held: A conviction cannot be based on the uncorroborated testimony of a hostile witness, especially when the prosecution fails to elicit material evidence during cross-examination – Held: The testimony of PW-3 is unreliable, and the conviction cannot rest upon it [Paras 11, 12].

Expert Testimony – Handwriting Expert’s Opinion – Standard of Proof – The handwriting expert (PW-16) expressed uncertainty regarding whether the handwriting on a returned postal cover matched the appellant’s handwriting – Supreme Court reiterated: It is unsafe to convict an accused solely on expert opinion without corroboration by other substantive evidence – Held: The expert’s opinion lacked sufficient reliability and corroboration to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Para 13].

Passports Act, 1967 – Section 12(2) – Knowledge of False Information – The appellant was charged with abetting the offense of obtaining a second passport through false information under Section 12(2) of the Passports Act – Supreme Court held: The prosecution failed to prove that the appellant had knowledge of the false information or that accused No.1 already possessed a passport – Held: In the absence of such evidence, the conviction under Section 12(2) cannot stand [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 420 of IPC and Section 12(2) of the Passports Act are set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – The bail bonds of the appellant are cancelled [Paras 16-17].

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) – Challenge to Sanction – Appellant challenged the validity of sanction granted under Section 45 of UAPA, arguing that the statutory timelines in Rules 3 & 4 of the 2008 Rules were violated and that the requirement of independent review was not fulfilled – High Court dismissed the writ petition – Supreme Court held that the validity of sanction should ideally be challenged at the earliest stage, but may be raised at a later stage if justified – Held: Timelines in Rules 3 & 4 are mandatory and must be strictly followed, but the challenge to sanction must be raised at trial and not delayed unnecessarily [Paras 19-18].

Independent Review – Application of Mind – Appellant argued that the independent review by both recommending and sanctioning authorities was not properly conducted as they took merely a day each to perform their functions – Court held that while independent review is required, the short time taken by authorities is not enough to invalidate the sanction without specific evidence of non-application of mind – The question of independent review is to be determined by evidence and should be raised at trial [Paras 41-44].

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – Misjoinder of Charges – Appellant contended that two disjointed transactions were combined, making him an accused alongside others under Section 223 of CrPC – Supreme Court held that joinder of charges must consider potential prejudice to the accused and the risk of judicial delay – Found that the transactions were part of the same continuing offence, and the issue should be raised at trial for appropriate consideration [Paras 43-46].

Corporate Liability – Section 22A of UAPA – Appellant claimed he was not in control of the company accused of aiding unlawful activities and that his identity had been stolen – Supreme Court held that exemption under Section 22A depends on the ability to prove lack of knowledge or reasonable effort to prevent the offence, which must be established through evidence at trial [Paras 47-50].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The challenge to sanction under UAPA must be raised at trial, and questions of independent review, misjoinder of charges, and corporate liability will be decided based on evidence presented during the trial. Pending applications disposed of [Paras 51-53].

Writ Jurisdiction – Interim Relief – Stay of Criminal Proceedings – Abuse of Process of Law – Petitioners sought quashing of multiple FIRs, alleging that disgruntled borrowers had misused criminal law against financial institutions – Supreme Court granted stay of proceedings in its interim order dated 28.04.2023, continued until petitions before respective High Courts were filed – Held: Petitioners permitted to challenge FIRs before jurisdictional High Courts – Stay on coercive steps continued only until the filing of petitions, not until their final disposal – Interim protection applied only to petitioners, not others involved [Paras 5, 18].

Maintainability of Miscellaneous Applications – Recall of Orders – Principles of Finality – Miscellaneous applications seeking modification/recall of final orders should be entertained only in rare cases – Recall of orders is permissible where a party is denied a hearing – Enforcement Directorate was impleaded without being heard, justifying recall of order – Held: The order dated 04.07.2023, to the extent it affects the Enforcement Directorate’s proceedings, was recalled – High Courts directed to adjudicate the matter uninfluenced by the Supreme Court’s interim order [Paras 10-15].

Inherent Powers of the Court – Modification of Orders – Prevention of Abuse of Process – The Supreme Court invoked its inherent powers under Rule 6 of Order LV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, to modify its previous order to prevent any potential abuse of process – Modification was necessary to ensure that the High Courts are not unduly influenced by observations made in the earlier order – Held: The High Courts are to decide the cases on their own merits, and the interim protection for the petitioners ends upon filing of their respective petitions before the High Courts [Paras 12, 18].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – No adverse orders should be passed against a party without providing them an opportunity to be heard – The Enforcement Directorate was not given a hearing before adverse directions were issued against it – Held: Order affecting the Enforcement Directorate recalled and set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice [Paras 14-15].

Decision: The order dated 04.07.2023 stands modified and recalled in part – The High Courts are directed to decide the petitions on merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in the earlier Supreme Court order – Interim relief for the petitioners is limited to the period until the filing of their petitions before the respective High Courts – Miscellaneous applications and interlocutory applications disposed of accordingly [Paras 16-18].