Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Decree of Restitution – Applicability of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Whether a wife, despite not complying with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights secured by the husband, is entitled to maintenance – Held: Non-compliance with such a decree does not automatically disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance – It must be assessed whether she had valid and sufficient reasons to stay away from her husband – Conduct of the husband and circumstances causing mental cruelty were key factors – Reena suffered mistreatment, denial of basic amenities, and neglect during her miscarriage – Husband’s lack of bona fides and failure to pursue reconciliation or divorce underscored his attempt to evade responsibility – High Court erred in applying Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Family Court’s maintenance order restored – Maintenance @ ₹10,000 per month upheld with arrears payable in installments.

Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Binding Effect in Maintenance Proceedings – Findings in the decree for restitution do not conclusively bind the Court in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Maintenance laws aim at social justice and provide independent remedies – Findings of the Civil Court can only be treated as relevant material but not as determinative of the wife’s right to maintenance – Differentiation between civil and maintenance proceedings emphasized.

Mental Cruelty – Evidence and Cumulative Assessment – Wife subjected to mental cruelty owing to the husband’s neglect and ill-treatment – Denial of basic facilities, refusal to bear medical expenses during her miscarriage, and lack of care and support cumulatively established mental cruelty – Reena’s refusal to return to the matrimonial home was justified under the circumstances – Mental cruelty assessed through cumulative conduct rather than isolated incidents.

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Family Court’s maintenance order restored – Maintenance of ₹10,000 per month from 03.08.2019 reaffirmed – Arrears to be paid in three equal installments by December 2025 – No costs awarded.

Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Act – Registration under Section 8 – Interpretation of Section 18 – Whether an MSME must register under Section 8 of the MSMED Act before the execution of a contract to seek remedies under Section 18 – Held: Registration under Section 8 is not a precondition to invoking Section 18 – Section 18 employs the phrase "any party to a dispute," which is not confined to registered suppliers – Registration is discretionary for micro and small enterprises, and an unregistered entity can still access remedies under the MSMED Act – Legislative intent and expert committee reports affirm the non-mandatory nature of registration – High Court's dismissal of the writ upheld, and reference to a larger bench ordered to clarify precedents – [Paras 14, 15, 27, 29].

Statutory Remedies – Facilitation Council’s Jurisdiction under MSMED Act – Role of Registration – Filing of a memorandum under Section 8 is discretionary and not a statutory requirement for dispute resolution under Section 18 – The Facilitation Council has jurisdiction over disputes irrespective of registration status – Legal precedent in Shanti Conductors case supports this interpretation – Remedies under Section 18 are intended to be broad and accessible – [Paras 14.1, 14.4, 14.9, 18].

Scope of Judicial Precedents – Silpi Industries and Mahakali Foods Cases Distinguished – The issue of mandatory registration under Section 8 was not formulated, discussed, or decided in Silpi Industries or Mahakali Foods – Observations in these cases are sub silentio on this issue – Subsequent reliance on these cases does not establish binding precedent – Clarification by a larger bench necessary for consistency – [Paras 17, 19, 27].

Policy Objectives of MSMED Act – Access to Justice – Remedies under the MSMED Act should be interpreted expansively to uphold the Act's intent of promoting economic justice for micro and small enterprises – Limiting access to remedies by imposing registration as a prerequisite would undermine the statutory objectives – [Paras 14.7, 19].

Decision – Appeal Referred to Larger Bench for Clarity – Recognizing the need for clarity on precedential authority, the court directed that the appeal be referred to a three-judge bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the mandatory nature of Section 8 registration for invoking Section 18 remedies – [Para 29].

Decision: Reference to a three-judge bench – Appeal deferred for further consideration – No costs awarded.

Civil Law - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Bar under Section 34 SARFAESI Act – Interpretation of Tribunal Powers – Civil Court jurisdiction is not barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act for matters beyond the scope of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)’s powers under Section 17 – Reliefs seeking declaration of sale and mortgage deeds as nullity, and possession of property are within the domain of civil courts as such issues involve title disputes and precede the measures taken under Section 13(4) SARFAESI Act [Paras 12-18, 23, 25].

Scope of DRT’s Powers – Section 17 SARFAESI Act – Limitations – The DRT’s authority under Section 17(3) SARFAESI Act is confined to addressing whether measures taken by secured creditors under Section 13(4) are in compliance with the Act – DRT lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputes regarding ownership, validity of sale deeds, or claims by third parties with adverse title. Use of the term "restore possession" in Section 17(3) confirms that possession can only be returned to a borrower or aggrieved person previously in possession, not to an independent claimant [Paras 17, 23, 39].

Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Partial Rejection Prohibited – A plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – If any relief survives and is not barred by law, the entire plaint must be allowed to proceed to trial – Even if certain reliefs are arguably barred by Section 34 SARFAESI Act, as long as others survive, the plaint cannot be dismissed in part [Paras 24-25, 34].

Judicial Precedents – SARFAESI Act – Validity of Civil Court Jurisdiction – Reaffirmed principles from Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311 regarding limited ouster of civil court jurisdiction under Section 34 SARFAESI Act – Highlighted that title disputes, allegations of fraud, and reliefs outside the DRT's scope remain adjudicable by civil courts [Paras 26-36].

Standard for Bar of Jurisdiction – Interpretation of Statutes – Bar of civil court jurisdiction under special statutes is not to be readily inferred – Statutory provisions ousting jurisdiction must be interpreted strictly, with civil court jurisdiction upheld unless explicitly or implicitly excluded by the statute [Paras 22, 43].

Final Decision – Civil Court jurisdiction upheld for the reliefs sought in the present case – The High Court's restoration of the plaint was affirmed, and all connected appeals dismissed – Observed that proper due diligence in loan transactions, including title clearance, is critical to avoid such disputes [Paras 45-46].

Divorce by Mutual Consent – Settlement Under Article 142 of the Constitution – Petitioner sought transfer of restitution of conjugal rights proceedings – Parties agreed to dissolve marriage amicably with the respondent paying ₹25 lakhs to the petitioner as full and final settlement – Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage solemnized on 14/02/2021 by mutual consent and to quash all pending litigation between the parties – Held: Transfer petition disposed of as infructuous; decree of divorce passed [Paras 2–6, 8].

Quashing of Multiple Proceedings – Domestic Disputes Resolved Amicably – Court quashed all pending cases inter se parties under Article 142 of the Constitution, including cases under Section 9 HMA, maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., domestic violence under Section 12 DV Act, FIR under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act – Parties sought closure of all litigation to avoid further disputes – Held: Litigation closed, decree drawn in terms of settlement [Paras 7–9].

Scope of Article 142 – Finality in Matrimonial Disputes – Supreme Court reiterated that powers under Article 142 can be invoked to grant complete justice between parties, including dissolving a marriage and quashing associated litigations where parties mutually agree – Held: Article 142 ensures expeditious and final resolution in matrimonial disputes [Para 6].

Decision:

Marriage dissolved by mutual consent under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – All pending cases, including restitution of conjugal rights, maintenance, domestic violence, and criminal cases, quashed – Transfer petition disposed of as infructuous – Registry directed to draw decree in terms of settlement [Paras 6–9].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Evidence Insufficient – Presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act – Held: Presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act requires cruelty as defined in Section 498-A IPC to establish abetment of suicide – In the absence of cogent evidence of cruelty or harassment, the presumption cannot arise – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law – Dowry Prohibition Act – Section 4 – Demand for Dowry – Absence of Independent Corroboration – Held: Allegations of dowry harassment must be supported by credible evidence – Where prosecution fails to establish dowry demand, conviction cannot stand – Conviction under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act set aside [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Appellate Review – Evidence Appreciation – Held: Courts below failed to properly assess evidence against the appellant (brother-in-law) – Conviction set aside due to lack of direct involvement or evidence linking him to abetment of suicide [Para 11].

Evidence Law – Section 113B, Evidence Act – Dowry Death – Applicability – Held: Presumption under Section 113B requires proof of cruelty or harassment soon before death – Absence of evidence of incessant harassment invalidates presumption under Section 113B [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 306, 498-A IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act set aside.

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Conversion of Conviction under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentencing – Appellants convicted for the murder of the deceased by the Trial Court and High Court under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Trial Court sentenced appellants to life imprisonment – On appeal, Supreme Court held that the motive and circumstances of the assault do not establish premeditation or intent to murder – Assault caused by the appellants with deadly weapons proved to have been done with knowledge of likelihood of causing death but without clear intention to kill – Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC – Appellants sentenced to period already undergone, subject to a fine of ₹50,000 each to be paid to the deceased’s family, failing which additional six months simple imprisonment to be served [Paras 90-94].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Sole Eye-Witness – Sole eye-witness Lata Bai (PW-10), the mother of the deceased, testified to witnessing the assault – Defence challenged her credibility due to delayed recording of her statement under Section 161 CrPC and alleged contradictions – Supreme Court upheld her testimony as credible and corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses – Minor discrepancies held insufficient to undermine her testimony – Evidence of the hostile witnesses and informant Santosh (PW-6) partially relied upon for corroboration – Trial Court and High Court’s acceptance of her evidence upheld [Paras 50-84].

Motive and Circumstantial Evidence – Motive Not Clearly Established – Motive for the assault by the appellants on the deceased not conclusively proved – No evidence of premeditated intention or prior enmity – Circumstances indicated a sudden quarrel – Recovery of weapons corroborated the assault but motive remained ambiguous – Supreme Court held motive absence not fatal as guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt by other evidence [Paras 90-91].

Hostile Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Informant Santosh (PW-6) and other non-official witnesses turned hostile – Their partial corroboration of the prosecution case used to support conviction – Supreme Court reiterated that hostile witnesses’ testimony need not be entirely discarded if parts are corroborated by credible evidence [Paras 76-77].

Medical Evidence – Injuries Sustained – Medical evidence confirmed grievous head injuries leading to the deceased’s death due to coma – Injuries consistent with weapons recovered – Medical reports corroborated eye-witness testimony and prosecution narrative – Supreme Court relied on the unchallenged testimony of medical witnesses to affirm the cause of death [Paras 69-70].

Seizure Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Blood-stained axe and iron pipe recovered at appellants’ instance – Seizure witnesses turned hostile but admitted signatures on seizure memos – Supreme Court held seizure memos proved by the Investigating Officer and recovery valid – Deficiencies in procedure not fatal to the prosecution [Paras 67-68].

Decision: Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence of life imprisonment reduced to period already undergone – Fine of ₹50,000 each imposed on appellants to be paid to the deceased’s family – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 93-95].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Taxi Driver – Possession of Contraband – Appellant, a taxi driver, prosecuted under the NDPS Act for recovery of 20 kilograms of ganja from his vehicle – Passengers fled the scene upon interception by police – Trial court convicted appellant based on inability to provide details of passengers – High Court upheld conviction – Supreme Court held: No evidence linking appellant to the contraband – Contraband not concealed, and no incriminating material found on appellant’s person – Conviction set aside [Paras 1–6].

Burden of Proof – Lack of Direct Evidence – Appellant contended ignorance of contraband in the taxi, attributing it to the passengers who fled – Supreme Court observed: Ordinarily, taxi drivers do not record passenger details – Appellant’s failure to provide passenger details insufficient to establish guilt – Prosecution failed to trace the passengers or prove connivance by the appellant [Paras 4–5].

Procedural Lapses – Search and Seizure – Personal search procedure under the NDPS Act not followed – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of compliance with prescribed procedures in NDPS cases to avoid prejudice against the accused [Para 5].

Exoneration – No Evidence of Guilty Intent – Supreme Court noted that appellant made no attempt to flee and no efforts were made to link him directly to the contraband – Held: Mere presence of contraband in a taxi does not automatically establish culpability of the driver in the absence of further evidence [Paras 5–6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under NDPS Act set aside – Bail bonds and sureties discharged [Para 6].

Criminal Law – Cross-Cases – Sentencing – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – The appellant was convicted under Sections 326, 325, 452, and 323 IPC while being acquitted of more serious charges under Sections 307, 148, and 149 IPC – High Court refused to grant the benefit of probation under the Probation Act despite acknowledging a settlement between the disputing parties in the cross-case – Supreme Court invoked its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 11 of the Probation Act to extend the benefit of probation to the appellant, considering his age, absence of criminal antecedents, and the amicable settlement reached between the parties [Paras 13-19].

Cross-Cases – Settlement – Sentencing Disparity – Incident involved two groups of the same family, leading to cross-complaints arising from the same transaction on 01.01.1993 – While accused in the cross-case were released on probation, the High Court denied similar relief to the appellant despite the identical context and amicable settlement – Supreme Court rectified this disparity and extended probation benefits to the appellant, considering the interconnected nature of both cases [Paras 12-16].

Probation Act – Applicability – Appellant, aged 70, had already undergone over four months of imprisonment out of the six-month sentence imposed by the High Court – Benefit under Section 4 of the Probation Act granted, considering his advanced age, absence of adverse material, and the prolonged pendency of proceedings – Personal bond and surety of ₹10,000 each imposed with an undertaking to maintain peace and good conduct [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Appellant released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation Act – Interim bail order regularized with additional conditions [Paras 19-21].

Criminal Law – Assault with Deadly Weapons – Common Intention – Accused No. 2 and Accused No. 3 assaulted the complainant (PW-1) and his son (PW-7) with a chopper and knife, respectively – Sessions Court convicted Accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to six years RI – High Court modified the sentence, acquitting Accused No. 1, reducing Accused No. 2’s conviction to Section 324 IPC with sentence of time served (16 days), and reducing Accused No. 3’s sentence to two years RI – Supreme Court held: Common intention (Section 34 IPC) established for Accused Nos. 2 and 3 based on the facts and circumstances – Appeal allowed partially [Paras 3–7, 10].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Application to Accused – Accused Nos. 2 and 3 acted in concert during the assault, carrying deadly weapons – Supreme Court ruled: Common intention can be formed spontaneously during the incident – High Court erred in concluding that Section 34 IPC was not applicable – Conviction of Accused No. 2 under Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC restored with sentence of two years RI and fine of ₹75,000 [Paras 7, 10–11].

Role of Accused No. 1 – Acquittal Upheld – High Court acquitted Accused No. 1 (Battegowda) on the ground that no active role was proved despite his presence at the scene – Supreme Court declined to interfere, holding that the High Court took a possible view based on the evidence [Para 6].

Modification of Conviction – High Court’s Error – High Court converted Accused No. 2’s conviction from Section 326 to Section 324 IPC, citing less severe injuries inflicted by him – Supreme Court held: Conviction under Section 326 IPC appropriate given the grievous nature of injuries caused using a chopper – Injuries inflicted on hands do not negate application of Section 326 IPC when common intention under Section 34 IPC is established [Paras 7, 10].

Legal Principles – Common Intention and Section 34 IPC – Supreme Court reiterated: Common intention does not require pre-planning and can develop during the incident – Reliance placed on Dharnidhar v. State of U.P. (2010) 7 SCC 759 to affirm the principle – Presence of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 at the scene with deadly weapons demonstrated concerted action to inflict injuries [Paras 8, 10].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction of Accused No. 2 under Section 324 IPC set aside and restored to Section 326 IPC read with Section 34 IPC – Accused No. 2 sentenced to two years RI with fine of ₹75,000, matching the sentence of Accused No. 3 – Accused No. 2 directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence – Acquittal of Accused No. 1 upheld [Paras 11–12].