Defamation – Private Complaint by Minister/Public Servant – Special procedure under Section 199(2) CrPC does not eclipse general procedure under Section 199(6) – Public servant's right to file individual complaint preserved – Appeals concerning procedural objections dismissed [Paras 41-56].

Tweets and Defamation – Statement “your answer will disclose your scam” not per se defamatory – Summoning order against appellant for this statement quashed – Application of mind by Magistrate found lacking – Appeal by appellant who made the statement allowed [Paras 57-63].

Procedural Protection – Section 237 CrPC provides safety valve against malicious prosecution – Section 250 CrPC offers similar protection for individual complaints – No additional protection needed beyond existing statutory provisions [Paras 52-55].

Decision – Appeal by Manoj Kumar Tiwari (A-1) dismissed – Appeal by Vijender Gupta (A-5) allowed – Summoning order against A-5 quashed – Complaint to proceed against other accused [Paras 56-65].

Rent and Tax Liability – Lease Agreement stipulated payment of rent, maintenance charges, and GST – Tenant defaulted on GST payment – Trial Court struck off tenant's defence under Section 13(6) – High Court upheld decision – Supreme Court set aside striking off defence after tenant deposited GST arrears – Clarified on whether non-payment of tax can justify striking off defence [Paras 1-6].

Periodic Rent Increase – Lease Agreement provided for periodic rent increase of 15% every three years – Court directed tenant to pay rent with retrospective increases – Directed to pay increased rent and GST within six weeks [Paras 6.1-8].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court and Trial Court orders striking off defence quashed – Tenant permitted to defend eviction suit – Case remanded for disposal within six months – No order as to costs [Paras 8-10].

Penal Code 1860 (IPC) – Murder – Acquittal – Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' evidence – Material contradictions noted in testimonies – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appeals allowed [Paras 1-62].

Discrepancies in Evidence – Vital discrepancies in prosecution's witnesses – Testimonies failed to corroborate key facts – Contradictory versions on who delivered the fatal blow – Witnesses were related, lacking independent evidence [Paras 41-52].

Inconsistent Testimonies – Material improvements and contradictions in testimonies of prosecution witnesses – Inconsistent statements regarding the assailants – Lack of clarity on crucial facts [Paras 40-43].

Independent Witnesses – Prosecution's failure to examine any independent witness – All witnesses related to each other – Evidence deemed unreliable due to contradictions [Paras 48-54].

Reappreciation of Evidence – Supreme Court reappreciated evidence due to misreading and misappreciation by lower courts – Found prosecution's evidence unreliable and insufficient for conviction [Paras 55-60].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 61-62].

Murder – Non-recovery of Weapons – Non-recovery of weapons does not discard the evidence of injured eye witnesses – Conviction under Sections 302 and 149 IPC upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-22].

Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Ten individuals assembled with firearms and lethal weapons – Violence and the ultimate act leading to murder indicates a common object to commit murder – Evidence from injured witnesses supported by medical reports [Paras 20-21].

Section 302 vs. Section 304 IPC – Contentions for altering conviction to Section 304 IPC rejected – No evidence to bring the act within exceptions to Section 300 IPC – Conviction under Section 302 IPC maintained [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 302 and 149 IPC upheld – No merit in contentions for altering conviction to Section 304 IPC [Para 22].

Murder – Acquittal – Absence of weapon recovery not a ground for acquittal – Eye witness testimony sufficient to convict – Contradictions in FIR timing not substantial – High Court's acquittal quashed and Trial Court's conviction restored – Respondents directed to surrender [Paras 1-10].

Eyewitness Testimony – Sole reliance on credible and reliable eyewitness testimony sufficient for conviction – No need for recovery of weapon if eyewitness accounts are trustworthy – Conviction can be based solely on reliable eyewitness evidence [Paras 6-8].

Contradictions in FIR – Minor contradictions regarding FIR timing and place not sufficient to acquit – Prosecution's case supported by consistent and reliable eyewitness testimony – High Court's reasons for acquittal not sustainable [Para 7].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment acquitting the accused set aside – Trial Court's conviction and sentence restored – Accused to surrender within six weeks or be taken into custody [Paras 9-10].

Second Appeal – Execution of Pronote – High Court interfered with concurrent findings of lower courts on execution of pronote – High Court set aside decrees on the ground of non-examination of attesting witness – Supreme Court found signature on pronote established by handwriting expert and execution by deed writer – High Court's interference unwarranted – Presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act upheld – High Court's decision quashed, decrees restored [Paras 5-7].

Presumption of Consideration – Section 118 NI Act – Execution of pronote by defendant established – Minor contradictions in witness depositions not sufficient to rebut presumption of consideration – Defendant failed to provide contrary evidence – High Court erred in allowing second appeal [Paras 6-6.1].

Non-examination of Witness – Non-examination of attesting witness to pronote not fatal to plaintiff's case – Execution and consideration sufficiently proved by other evidence – High Court's reasoning flawed [Paras 6-6.1].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and order set aside – Trial Court and First Appellate Court's judgment and decree restored – No costs [Paras 7].

Land Acquisition – Section 17 Urgency Provisions – Compliance with Section 17(3A) mandatory for absolute vesting – Non-compliance with Section 17(3A) leads to lapsing of acquisition if award not made within two years – Compliance with Section 17(3A) and taking possession ensures vesting and avoids lapsing under Section 11A – Acquisition in present case deemed not to have lapsed due to development on land and partial compliance [Paras 1-26].

Section 11A Applicability – Period within which award must be made applicable to acquisitions under Section 17 – Requirement of tendering and paying 80% of compensation before possession essential – Non-compliance leads to lapsing unless landowner consents – In present case, retrospective application not feasible due to completed development and partial compliance [Paras 8-17].

Relief and Remedy – Market value to be determined as on 09.06.2008 – Statutory benefits calculated from date of original notification – Award to be passed afresh with opportunity for appellant to seek enhancement – Relief molded considering development on land and procedural delays [Paras 23-26].

Decision – Appeals allowed in part – High Court's judgment set aside – Directed respondents to determine market value as on 09.06.2008 and calculate benefits from original notification date – Compensation to be paid accordingly – No cause of action for other land losers to seek re-determination [Paras 26-28].

Family Pension – Work-Charged Employee – Appellant's deceased husband was engaged as a Muster Roll employee and later appointed to the work-charged establishment – Deceased remained a work-charged employee until his demise – Work-charged employees not covered under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 – Board had adopted National Pension Scheme for work-charged employees, which the deceased did not opt for – High Court's denial of family pension upheld [Paras 1-15].

Regulation and Rules – Applicability – M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 explicitly exclude work-charged employees – M.P. Housing Board had not adopted relevant pension rules for work-charged employees – National Pension Scheme extended to work-charged employees in 2015 – Deceased did not exercise option for NPS [Paras 6-14].

Legal Precedent – Prem Singh Case – Not applicable to present case as it dealt with regularized employees' pension eligibility – Deceased in present case not regularized [Para 13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Deceased not regularized and did not opt for NPS – Appellant not entitled to family pension – No interference with High Court's judgment [Paras 15-16].

Adverse Possession – Title Suit – Plaintiffs not found to be owners – Plaintiffs' claim of title by adverse possession and ownership through sale deed contradictory – High Court erred in granting permanent injunction – Appeal allowed, lower courts' judgments quashed, Trial Court judgment restored dismissing suit [Paras 1-6].

Contradictory Claims – Plaintiffs' ownership claim via sale deed and adverse possession are mutually exclusive – High Court's recognition of contradiction but failure to reverse injunction decree incorrect – Substantial question of law on adverse possession decided in favor of appellant – Injunction for possession as encroacher untenable [Paras 3-5].

Legal Misinterpretation – Courts below misunderstood legal implications of adverse possession claim when ownership not proven – Injunction without ownership validation improper – Plaintiffs' possession considered encroachment [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and First Appellate Court judgments set aside – Trial Court judgment dismissing suit restored – No order as to costs [Paras 5-6].