Service Law - Termination of Service – Applicability of Article 311(2)(b) – Invalid Termination – The appellants terminated the services of doctors under Article 311(2)(b) citing impracticability of conducting a disciplinary enquiry due to large-scale absenteeism – The High Court quashed the termination orders, holding the provision inapplicable and ordered reinstatement with benefits – Held: The termination under Article 311(2)(b) was unsustainable as no evidence showed it was impracticable to conduct an enquiry; however, reinstatement was also inappropriate considering the respondents' absenteeism [Paras 2-5, 8-10].

Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) – Unreasonable Delay in Decision – The respondents' applications for VRS were kept pending for an extended period, and the appellants failed to provide reasons for the delay – Held: The applications for VRS were deemed accepted from the termination date, ensuring justice while precluding back salary or pre-pension benefits due to the respondents' prolonged absence [Paras 6-7, 10].

Judicial Powers under Article 142 – Complete Justice – In the unique facts of the case, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142 to quash the termination orders and substitute them with orders granting VRS – Directed pension fixation based on VRS with effect from the termination date but payable only prospectively from the date of the judgment [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The appeals were partly allowed. The termination orders were quashed and substituted with VRS orders dated 03/05/2010. Respondents were not entitled to back salary or arrears but directed to receive prospective pension benefits, ensuring equity and justice.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheques – Essential Ingredients – Complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act lacked specific averments that the appellant, as the authorized signatory of the company, was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of its business – Held: Such averments are statutorily mandatory to maintain a complaint under Section 138 – Absence of such averments renders the complaint unsustainable – Complaint and all proceedings emanating therefrom quashed [Paras 6-8, 9].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Summoning Orders – High Court declined to quash summoning orders despite the absence of mandatory averments in the complaints – Held: Compelling the appellant to stand trial in the absence of foundational statutory requirements would amount to abuse of the court process – Summoning orders and all related proceedings set aside [Paras 8-9].

Legal Principle – Liability of Authorized Signatory – It is settled law that to maintain a charge under Section 138 NI Act against an individual associated with a company, the complaint must specifically state that the individual was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business – Failure to make such averments is fatal to the complaint – Reliance placed on Ashok Shewakramani v. State of Andhra Pradesh [Paras 7, 8].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Complaints Quashed – High Court order dismissing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. set aside – Complaints filed under Section 138 NI Act and related summoning orders quashed – Proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate quashed as against the appellant [Paras 9-10].
 

Criminal Law – Allegations of Witchcraft – Public Humiliation and Assault – FIR lodged against 13 accused under Sections 341, 323, 354, 354B, 379, 504, 506, 149 IPC, and Sections 3 & 4 of the Witch (Daain) Practices Act for grave allegations including assault, disrobing, and public humiliation of the victims accused of witchcraft – Police filed chargesheet against only one accused, ignoring material implicating others – Magistrate took cognizance against all accused based on available evidence – High Court stayed proceedings against certain accused in a nonspeaking order – Held: Such heinous crimes infringing upon the dignity of individuals demand sensitive and timely adjudication – Stay granted by the High Court was inappropriate, failing to consider prima facie evidence or seriousness of the allegations [Paras 4-7, 10-12, 26].

Human Dignity – Right to Live with Dignity under Article 21 – Prima Facie Case for Trial Established – Allegations of witchcraft led to acts of public humiliation, disrobing, and physical assault of the victims – Held: The Trial Court correctly took cognizance of the case, finding a prima facie case based on evidence, and the High Court erred in staying the trial proceedings mechanically [Paras 8-10, 13-15].

Witchcraft Accusations – Gender Discrimination – Need for Sensitivity and Expediency in Judicial Proceedings – Accusations of witchcraft are often rooted in patriarchal and superstitious practices disproportionately targeting women, especially elderly or marginalized individuals – Court emphasized the duty of the State to protect dignity under international treaties and constitutional mandates [Paras 18-20, 25-28].

Role of the State – Ensuring Justice for Vulnerable Groups – The State's Inaction – Court criticized the State’s failure to challenge the High Court’s stay order and highlighted the need for proactive litigation to uphold the rule of law and justice for victims of heinous crimes [Paras 22-23, 29-30].

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The High Court’s stay order was set aside. The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the case on a day-to-day basis from 15/01/2025, ensuring the trial’s completion without delay. Observations made in the judgment were not to influence the final outcome.

Criminal Law – Double Jeopardy – Acquittal and De Novo Investigation – High Court Order Quashed – The High Court ordered reinvestigation and subsequent prosecution despite appellant’s prior acquittal – Held: Such direction violates the constitutional protection under Article 20(2) and statutory safeguards under Section 300 Cr.P.C., which bar retrial for the same offence once acquitted – High Court order and subsequent proceedings quashed [Paras 35-38].

Power of Appellate Court – Scope of Section 386 Cr.P.C. – The High Court, while exercising powers under Section 386, can order retrial but not reinvestigation – Reinforcing principles of fair trial, retrial is permitted only in exceptional cases where procedural irregularities render the trial ineffective – High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by directing reinvestigation [Paras 26-30].

Principle of Autrefois Acquit – Statutory and Constitutional Protections – The Court reiterated that double jeopardy prohibits retrying a person for the same offence post-acquittal unless specific statutory exceptions apply – Reinvestigation directed by the High Court contravenes established criminal jurisprudence [Paras 33-34].

Right to Fair Trial – Impact of Faulty Investigation – Emphasized that lapses in investigation should not prejudice the accused – Reinforcing earlier judgments, the Court ruled that substandard investigation does not justify reopening trials or reinvestigation absent exceptional grounds [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order directing reinvestigation by CBI quashed – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law - Application of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Scheduled Tribes Excluded Unless Directed by Notification – Appellants claimed property rights under HSA, 1956 – Held: Under Section 2(2) of HSA, scheduled tribes are excluded unless directed by notification, which was absent in this case – High Court correctly applied the principle of justice, equity, and good conscience under the Central Provinces Laws Act, 1875, granting equal property rights to tribal women [Paras 3, 18].

Tribal Identity and Denotification – Burden of Proof – Appellants argued that the Sawara tribe had assimilated into Hindu practices and thus were governed by HSA, 1956 – Held: No notification denotifying the tribe was produced – Scheduled status persists unless explicitly altered by presidential notification under Article 342 of the Constitution [Paras 3, 17].

Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience – Supplementary Principles Applied – Where statutory provisions are silent or inapplicable, principles of justice, equity, and good conscience guide decisions – High Court rightly granted property rights to Mardan’s daughters under these principles, even though HSA, 1956 did not apply [Paras 3, 19].

Gender Parity in Property Rights – Call for Legislative Amendment – Emphasized the need for legislative action to secure property rights for female members of tribal communities – Recommended that the Central Government consider extending the applicability of HSA, 1956 to tribals to ensure gender equality in inheritance [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment granting property rights to Mardan’s daughters affirmed – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Law - Oral Gift (Hiba) – Requisites Under Mohammedan Law – Invalid Gift Declared – The appellants argued that the property was orally gifted by Sultan Saheb, evidenced by mutation entries – Held: A valid gift under Mohammedan law requires (1) declaration of intention by the donor, (2) acceptance by the donee, and (3) delivery of possession – While acceptance and possession were proven, no clear declaration of intention was established – Mutation entries alone do not substantiate a gift, as they only pertain to revenue records and do not confer title – Oral gift deemed invalid [Paras 36, 38].

Partition During Lifetime – Prohibited by Mohammedan Law – Appeal Dismissed – The appellants claimed that Sultan Saheb partitioned his property among heirs during his lifetime – Held: Mohammedan law does not recognize partition during the lifetime of the property owner, as heirs' rights arise only after the owner’s death – Any claim of partition is invalid under personal law principles [Paras 17-20].

Role of Mutation Entries – Limited to Revenue Records – No Title Created – Mutation entries cannot confer title or validate transactions such as gifts or partitions – Held: These entries serve only administrative purposes for collecting land revenue and do not substantiate ownership rights [Paras 25-27].

Interpretation of Personal Law – Supreme Importance of Shariat Principles – Held: Mohammedan law's principles, sourced from the Quran, Hadith, Ijma, and Qiyas, govern issues like gifts and inheritance – Under these principles, property devolves by inheritance, and the concept of joint family or coparcenary is absent – The appellants’ claims contradicted these foundational rules [Paras 18-20, 28-29].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court and Trial Court findings upheld – No valid oral gift or partition established.

Scope of Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Applicability to Tribunals – Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. mandates that complaints for offences under Sections 193, 199, and 200 IPC, when committed before a Court, must be filed only by orders of the Court concerned – Tribunal not defined as "Court" under law – Held: Offences alleged to have been committed before a Tribunal may be addressed through private complaints rather than following the procedure under Section 195 Cr.P.C..

Private Complaints – Offences under Sections 193, 199, and 200 IPC – Where offences are committed outside a Court, private complaints are maintainable – Tribunal, being outside the definition of "Court," can entertain such complaints – Held: Private complaints are valid for offences committed before the Municipal Building Tribunal in this case.

Quashing of Complaint – High Court’s Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court quashed the private complaint on the ground that it contravened Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Supreme Court held this reasoning to be erroneous, as the Tribunal was not a Court – Held: High Court order set aside, and private complaint restored for adjudication on merits by the Tribunal.

Decision – Appeal allowed – Private complaint restored to the Tribunal – Supreme Court clarified that the decision is based solely on technical and legal grounds, and the merits of the case remain to be adjudicated by the Tribunal.

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.
 

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].