Criminal Law – Sections 498A and 306 IPC – Discharge Application – Partial Discharge Granted – Appellants accused of subjecting the deceased (wife of appellant no. 1) to physical and mental harassment, including selling her streedhan and torturing her when she demanded its return – Alleged harassment led to the deceased committing suicide by hanging – Sessions Court and High Court dismissed appellants’ plea for discharge under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Supreme Court, on appeal, discharged appellants from Section 306 IPC while upholding charges under Section 498A IPC – Held: No proximate link between alleged harassment and the suicide to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC – Sufficient material exists to prima facie proceed under Section 498A IPC [Paras 2-28].

Cruelty – Section 498A IPC – Prima Facie Case – FIR alleged persistent physical and mental harassment of the deceased by the appellants, including the sale of her streedhan and subsequent torture – Witness statements corroborated allegations of harassment – Court held that evidence established prima facie cruelty under Section 498A IPC, warranting trial – Mere absence of prior complaints during twelve years of marriage does not negate allegations – Specific incidents cited in the FIR and statements meet the threshold for framing charges [Paras 12-15].

Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Mens Rea and Proximity – Appellants argued absence of intent to instigate suicide – Court held that for abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear mens rea and a proximate causal link between the accused's actions and the suicide – Alleged harassment, including the sale of ornaments, occurred a year before the suicide and lacked the necessary proximity and intent – No direct or active act by the appellants to instigate or provoke the deceased to commit suicide – Charge under Section 306 IPC not sustained [Paras 16-27].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Appellants discharged from charges under Section 306 IPC – Charge under Section 498A IPC upheld – Trial under Section 498A IPC to proceed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 26-28].
 

Contempt of Court – Alleged Wilful Disobedience of Supreme Court Orders – TDR Compliance - Wilful Disobedience – Orders Passed by Supreme Court – Intentional Delay in Compliance – Allegations of wilful disobedience of Supreme Court orders dated 21.11.2014, 17.05.2022, and 19.03.2024 – Petitioners claimed non-compliance by respondents regarding issuance of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for land acquired for road widening projects – Contemnor authorities delayed implementation under pretext of financial hardships and other excuses – Held: Non-compliance was deliberate and intentional, indicating wilful disobedience [Paras 1.10-1.13, 10, 13].

Transferable Development Rights (TDR) – Failure to Issue as Per Rules – Orders mandated issuance of TDR under Karnataka Town and Country Planning Rules, 2016, which require market value determination based on guidance values under Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – Respondents calculated TDR at significantly lower values, contrary to rules and judicial directions – Notices issued for compliance were found to contain suppressed facts and contradictory positions by the authorities – Held: Issuance of TDR must align with prescribed rules and market value as determined under the Stamp Act [Paras 11-12, 18-22].

Government's Conduct – Deliberate Inaction and Misrepresentation – Respondents failed to implement court orders from 2014 to 2022, delaying with inter-departmental communications and filing modification applications, all dismissed – Subsequent Government Orders calculated TDR on arbitrary values, ignoring binding judicial directions – Held: Respondents' conduct amounted to wilful disregard of court orders [Paras 5.4, 7-9].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Substantial Compliance Required – Execution of court orders must be substantial and reflect bonafide efforts – Theoretical or partial compliance is insufficient – Held: Contempt proceedings maintain the dignity of courts, and respondents' delay tactics were unjustified and contemptuous [Paras 5.3, 18].

Decision: Respondents directed to issue TDR certificates within six weeks based on market value under Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – Specific guidance values: ₹2,83,500 per sq. meter (Bellary Road) and ₹2,04,000 per sq. meter (Jayamahal Road) – Non-compliance would require personal appearance of relevant authorities before the Court [Paras 20, 25].

Additional conditions imposed by the Supreme Court's 19.03.2024 order were recalled to align with earlier orders [Paras 20].

Costs of ₹1 lakh each imposed on contemnors for delaying proceedings, except in CP No. 578 of 2022 [Para 25].

Contempt Petitions allowed – Respondents to report compliance by 22.01.2025 or face further action.
 

Rash and Negligent Driving – Conviction under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC – Upheld - The appellant drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner, causing the death of the deceased and six cattle – The eye-witness accounts consistently established the appellant’s guilt, and the suggestion that the accident was caused by cattle trampling was rightly rejected – The Supreme Court found no merit to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction by the lower courts [Paras 7-8].

Sentence Modification – Special Circumstances – Sentence Reduced - Considering that eleven years had elapsed since the incident, the appellant had been on bail throughout, and compensation had already been deposited – The Court reduced the sentence of three months simple imprisonment to no imprisonment, instead directing the release of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest as compensation to the deceased's mother under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. – The fine imposed by the High Court was also set aside [Paras 9-10].

Compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. – Directions for Disbursement - The Court ordered that the compensation amount deposited by the appellant along with interest be released to the deceased’s mother after verification of her identity – Directions were issued to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, for compliance [Paras 11-12].

Final Order – Partial Allowance of Appeal - The appeal was partly allowed – Conviction upheld, but the sentence was reduced, and compensation to the legal heir of the deceased was ordered [Para 14].

Criminal Law - Murder – Section 302 IPC – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Reversed – Prosecution alleged the appellants murdered the deceased, Hamida Parween, to usurp property – Trial Court and High Court convicted based on circumstantial evidence, including motive and last seen theory – Supreme Court held: Chain of incriminating circumstances not established; motive not proved beyond doubt; no credible evidence of the accused being last seen with the deceased – Accused acquitted by granting benefit of doubt [Paras 5-37].

Motive – Property Dispute – Evidence Insufficient – Prosecution claimed ongoing disputes over property motivated the crime – No direct evidence corroborated motive; alleged complaint by the deceased was not produced in court – Supreme Court observed mere familial disputes do not substantiate motive for murder – Trial Court erred in finding motive established [Paras 28-30].

Last Seen Theory – Section 106 of Evidence Act – Invocation Invalid – Prosecution relied on "last seen together" theory to shift burden under Section 106 – Evidence failed to establish exclusive presence of accused with deceased on the fateful day – No witnesses or credible evidence corroborated proximity of accused to the crime – Court ruled shifting the burden was improper without establishing foundational facts [Paras 31-37].

Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution’s Case Found Flawed – Lack of credible evidence and unexplained gaps in the prosecution's narrative weakened the case – Appellants’ convictions reversed, and Abdul Rahman Khan (non-appealing accused) also acquitted under Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 38-40].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Accused Acquitted – Supreme Court acquitted appellants Nusrat Parween, Ahmad Khan, and Abdul Rahman Khan – Bail bonds discharged; custody release ordered if no other cases pending – Appeals allowed with pending applications disposed [Paras 40-42].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – FIR and chargesheet challenged as vague, retaliatory, and without specific evidence – FIR quashed.

Matrimonial Dispute – Allegations of Dowry Harassment – FIR No.82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 was registered against the appellants under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – High Court refused to quash the FIR but directed that no arrest be made until filing of the chargesheet – Allegations in the FIR deemed vague and lacking specific details regarding the time, place, and manner of alleged harassment – Held: FIR was filed as a retaliatory measure in response to appellant No.1's legal notice seeking divorce by mutual consent – Allegations found to be unsupported by concrete evidence [Paras 18, 20-22, 32].

Family Members’ Involvement – Abuse of Process – Appellants Nos.2 to 6, who lived in different cities, had no connection to the matrimonial disputes – Allegations against them were generalized and without specificity – Courts cautioned against implicating family members without evidence, as it constitutes abuse of legal process – Criminal proceedings against family members found to be an abuse of process and were quashed [Paras 24-26, 32].

Judicial Precedents – Misuse of Section 498A IPC – Reiterated the cautionary approach from State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal and subsequent cases, such as G.V. Rao and Preeti Gupta, which emphasize the need to prevent misuse of Section 498A IPC – Observed that matrimonial disputes often result in sweeping allegations against the husband’s family, necessitating careful judicial scrutiny [Paras 11, 30-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order dated 16.02.2022 refusing to quash the FIR set aside – FIR No.82 of 2022, chargesheet dated 03.06.2022, and pending trial quashed – Case held to be a misuse of criminal provisions to settle personal scores and an abuse of judicial process [Paras 32-33].

Service Law - Temporary Employment – Principles of Engagement and Termination – Public Employment Rules – Respondent engaged as a Computer Technician for a fixed term of one year or until regular selection – Termination before the term's expiry was non-stigmatic – Held: Temporary engagement cannot confer rights akin to regular employment – In absence of regular recruitment, continuation or reinstatement is unsustainable – Compensation for unfulfilled term deemed sufficient [Paras 2-6, 14, 17].

Parity in Employment Decisions – No Claim to Negative Equality – Respondent relied on Tribunal orders reinstating similarly terminated individuals – Held: Article 14 does not recognize "negative equality" – Erroneous or administrative reinstatements do not establish legal precedent – Employment decisions require examination on individual merits, as laid down in State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati and State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma [Paras 18-20].

Natural Justice – Procedural Fairness in Termination – Limited Applicability – High Court relied on lack of opportunity to be heard prior to disengagement – Held: In cases of temporary employment, procedural fairness requirements are limited when termination is non-stigmatic – No contravention of principles of natural justice established in this case [Paras 8, 15].

Compensation as Equitable Remedy – Rs. 5 Lakhs Awarded – Prolonged litigation and unequal treatment led to respondent's expectation of similar relief – Held: Equitable compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs awarded as full and final settlement – No grounds for reinstatement or continuation due to expiration of term and lack of regular recruitment [Paras 21-23].

Decision: Appeal allowed. High Court's order for reinstatement and reengagement set aside. Respondent awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs as final settlement, payable within three months. Pending applications disposed of.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance Pendente Lite – Section 24 HMA – Independence from Divorce Petition – Appellant argued that withdrawal of the divorce petition rendered Family Court functus officio to decide maintenance – Held: Section 24 proceedings are independent and survive withdrawal of the main case – Statutory provisions aim to ensure financial security of the dependent spouse despite procedural developments – High Court rightly upheld the Family Court’s jurisdiction [Paras 10-11].

Custody and Maintenance of Children – Section 26 HMA – Paramount Interest – High Court held that Section 26 proceedings addressing children's welfare are of paramount importance – These proceedings persist irrespective of withdrawal of the divorce petition, ensuring ongoing support for dependent children – Emphasized protection of children's rights to maintenance and education [Paras 11-12].

Maintenance – Misrepresentation by Spouse – Appellant’s Concealment of Wealth – Evidence revealed the appellant’s deliberate suppression of financial records, including undeclared investments and properties – Appellant failed to discharge moral and legal obligations towards wife and son – Held: Concealment tactics warrant enhanced maintenance to align with respondent’s needs and social status [Paras 13-15].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Article 142 – Decree of Divorce Granted – Marriage subsisted nominally for over two decades with no cohabitation since 2004 – Serious allegations by both parties and failed reconciliation attempts established irretrievable breakdown – Exercising Article 142 powers, the Court dissolved the marriage and awarded a decree of divorce [Paras 27-28].

Permanent Alimony – Fair and Equitable Settlement – Quantum Determination – Considered the appellant’s substantial income (Rs. 10-12 lakhs per month) and assets, including investments exceeding Rs. 5 crores – Granted one-time settlement of Rs. 5 crores to the wife and Rs. 1 crore for the son’s education and financial security – Objective to ensure reasonable standard of living and protection of financial interests of dependent spouse and child [Paras 40-42].

Decision: Appeals disposed of. Marriage dissolved under Article 142 of the Constitution. Appellant directed to pay Rs. 5 crores to the respondent and Rs. 1 crore to the son as a one-time settlement within four months.

Property Rights – Section 14(1) and 14(2) of Hindu Succession Act – Judicial Divergence – Referred to Larger Bench – Analysis of Precedents Required - Multiple judgments from different Benches, including two-judge and three-judge Bench decisions, present inconsistent interpretations of Section 14 – This has resulted in judicial conflict between principles of absolute ownership under Section 14(1) and restricted estate under Section 14(2) – A larger Bench to reconcile inconsistencies for clarity and certainty in the law governing Hindu females' property rights [Paras 1–5, 24–25].

Restricted Estate – Testamentary Disposition – Section 14(2) – Applicability Debated – The appeal involved a testamentary disposition creating a life estate in favor of a Hindu female, with subsequent alienation leading to legal challenges – High Court followed Sadhu Singh v. Gurdwara Sahib Narike favoring Section 14(2), while appellants argued that this contradicted Tulasamma – Held: Further adjudication needed by a larger Bench [Paras 6–14, 20–25].

Judicial Need for Uniform Interpretation – Conflict in Precedents – Impact on Hindu Females’ Rights – Observed that Section 14 impacts property rights of Hindu females, with inconsistencies causing lack of clarity across courts – Referral to larger Bench deemed essential to reconcile principles and ensure certainty in law [Paras 3, 24–25].

Decision – Interim Referral – Matter Adjourned – Directed Registry to place the appeal before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for referral to an appropriate larger Bench – No final adjudication by the two-judge Bench – Outcome dependent on larger Bench decision [Para 25].

Service Law – Permanent Commission – Discrimination – Appellant, a Short Service Commissioned (SSC) officer in the Army Dental Corps, was denied a third chance for permanent commission due to amendments to age relaxation policies introduced in 2013 – Appellant sought parity with other officers granted permanent commission by Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Principal Bench, in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 – Tribunal rejected appellant’s claim on grounds that she was not a party to the original case – Supreme Court held appellant was identically situated to officers who benefited from the 2013 judgment and deserved similar treatment to avoid discrimination – Relief granted under Article 142 of the Constitution – Directions issued for granting appellant permanent commission with consequential benefits [Paras 1–24].

Policy Amendments – Age Relaxation – Amendments to AI 37/78 in 2013 capped age relaxation for SSC officers seeking permanent commission at 35 years and applied only to those with postgraduate qualifications – Appellant, eligible under pre-2013 rules, was deprived of her third chance – Supreme Court observed that denying the appellant relief while granting it to identically situated officers was discriminatory and unsupported by valid justification – Held: Amendments did not justify exclusion of appellant from consideration for permanent commission [Paras 3–19].

Principle of Parity – Similarly Situated Officers – Officers in O.A. No. 111 of 2013 who were also SSC officers denied a third chance due to the 2013 amendments were granted age relaxation and permanent commission by AFT Principal Bench – Supreme Court reiterated that similarly situated individuals should not be denied relief solely because they did not approach the court – Appellant, having actively pursued her rights since 2014, deserved identical relief [Paras 14–19].

Exercise of Discretion – Article 142 of the Constitution – Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to provide full relief, noting appellant’s distinguished service, lack of fault, and longstanding efforts for redressal – Directed grant of permanent commission with seniority, promotion, and monetary arrears to align with similarly situated officers – Directions to be implemented within four weeks [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – AFT Regional Bench, Lucknow’s order dated 05.01.2022 set aside – Appellant granted permanent commission with effect from the same date as similarly situated officers, along with all consequential benefits [Paras 24–25].