Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC – Petitioner driving a Qualis vehicle at high speed collided with a motorcycle, causing the death of the rider and injuries to the pillion – Trial Court convicted the petitioner, sentencing him to 6 months S.I. under Section 304A IPC and a fine of ₹1,000 under Section 279 IPC – Conviction upheld by First Appellate Court and High Court – Held: Evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and post-mortem report, established rash and negligent conduct – Road width of 24 feet negated petitioner’s claim of contributory negligence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9-15, 17].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Allegations of Contradictions – Petitioner claimed that testimonies of PW2, PW3, and PW4 were contradictory and unreliable – Supreme Court held: Minor contradictions do not render testimonies untrustworthy – Testimonies corroborated by documentary evidence, including spot sketch and MVI report [Paras 7-12].

Section 304A IPC – Leniency in Sentencing – Petitioner pleaded for conversion of sentence to fine citing personal hardships – Supreme Court declined, holding that the petitioner’s actions caused the death of one person and injuries to another – No justification for leniency in the circumstances [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence of 6 months S.I. under Section 304A IPC and fine under Section 279 IPC upheld – No interference warranted by the Supreme Court [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Factors to Consider – High Court granted anticipatory bail to respondents accused under Sections 302, 341, 323, 307, 504, and 34 of IPC – Appellant challenged the order, citing specific allegations in FIR and chargesheet indicating respondents’ involvement in setting the deceased ablaze with intent to kill – Supreme Court held: High Court failed to consider the nature and gravity of the offence, role of the accused, and materials on record – Anticipatory bail granted in a cryptic and mechanical manner without application of judicial mind – Impugned order set aside [Paras 6, 12-14].

Criminal Law – Murder – Anticipatory Bail Rejected – Respondents accused of pouring kerosene oil on the deceased and setting him on fire, resulting in death – Investigation found allegations true, with chargesheet naming all accused – Supreme Court held: Such heinous crimes necessitate careful judicial scrutiny before granting anticipatory bail – High Court’s order quashed, and respondents directed to surrender – Liberty granted to seek regular bail before Trial Court [Paras 4-7, 13-15].

Judicial Discretion – Grant of Bail – Application of Law – Supreme Court reiterated principles laid down in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) regarding the exercise of discretion in granting anticipatory bail – Nature and gravity of the offence, specific allegations, and evidence must guide judicial decisions – Cryptic or mechanical orders undermine justice delivery [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail set aside – Respondents directed to surrender within four weeks – Trial Court to consider applications for regular bail on their merits, uninfluenced by observations in this judgment [Para 15].
 

Civil Law – Partition of Revenue-Paying Estate – Bar under Section 154(1)(e) of Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886 – Appellant sought partition and possession of land measuring 1 Katha 5 Lechas based on a prior decree for joint possession – Revenue authorities declined partition for lack of actual possession – Civil suit dismissed by Trial Court citing bar under Section 154(1)(e) – Held: Civil court jurisdiction barred only if imperfect partition is otherwise maintainable under Section 97 of the Regulation – When co-sharers contest title or possession, civil court jurisdiction to adjudicate rights of parties remains intact – High Court erred in holding suit barred under Section 154(1)(e) [Paras 20-28, 52-55].

Order XX Rule 18 CPC – Partition of Revenue Estates – Decree for Partition – Role of Civil Court and Collector – Held: Civil courts may declare the rights of parties in revenue-paying estates but actual partition must be executed by the Collector – Civil court retains jurisdiction to decide title and direct revenue authorities for partition in cases of dispute [Paras 33-51].

Revenue Authority Jurisdiction – Imperfect Partition under Section 97 – Consent of Co-sharers – Actual Possession – Revenue authorities competent to effect partition only when co-sharers consent – Dispute on title or possession mandates resolution by civil court – Jurisdiction of civil court to decide rights and shares unaffected by refusal of imperfect partition by revenue authorities [Paras 23-28, 50-55].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Order of Civil Judge granting partition restored – Appellant entitled to partition and recovery of possession of 1 Katha 5 Lechas of land by metes and bounds [Paras 57-59].

Family Law - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Grant of Divorce under Article 142(1) – The Court dissolved the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, citing irretrievable breakdown of marriage – The marriage was marred by multiple litigations, allegations of cruelty, and false criminal complaints – Held: The marriage had become emotionally dead and unworkable – Divorce granted under Article 142(1), balancing equities, including permanent alimony to the petitioner [Paras 9.10, 9.15-9.16, 12].

Transfer Petition – Section 25 CPC – Adjudication of Alimony – The Court transferred the divorce petition from Bhopal to Pune for adjudication limited to determining alimony – Alimony fixed at ₹2 lakhs per month or ₹10 crores in lump sum, considering the respondent’s financial status, marriage duration, and circumstances [Para 3.10, 3.13].

Misuse of Criminal Law – Effect on Marital Relationship – The petitioner’s filing of false criminal cases under Sections 498A, 376, and 377 IPC, Look Out Circulars, and arrest of the respondent irreparably fractured the marriage – Such actions amounted to cruelty against the respondent [Paras 9.9, 10].

Exercise of Article 142(1) – Complete Justice Achieved – Broad powers under Article 142(1) were used to dissolve the marriage and provide equitable relief – Held: Prolonged litigation and acrimony necessitated this decision – Relief included permanent alimony balancing fairness for both parties [Paras 9.16, 10].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Marriage dissolved under Article 142(1) – Alimony to be determined by the Family Court at Pune.

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].

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.

Civil Writ - PIL - Judicial Review – Public Contracts – Excessive Delegation Invalidated – Articles 13 and 14 of the Concession Agreement, allowing NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Ltd. to levy toll, were held invalid for violating public policy – Held: Power to levy fees or toll cannot be delegated to private entities as per the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976; only the collection of fees may be delegated [Paras 42-50].

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability and Delay – Continuous Cause of Action – The PIL filed after 15 years of the Concession Agreement was held maintainable due to continuous public injury and absence of clear disclosure of toll recoveries – Held: Delay in filing a public interest matter does not preclude maintainability where public welfare is at stake [Paras 16-21].

Reasonableness of Toll Policy – Violation of Public Policy – Perpetual Recovery of Costs – Formula in the Concession Agreement led to perpetual recovery of escalating project costs, extending the concession period indefinitely – Held: The agreement imposed an undue burden on public commuters and failed to align with the principles of equity and public trust [Paras 53-65].

Role of the State – Responsibility in Public-Private Partnerships – Lack of Transparency – Selection of NTBCL without competitive bidding and delegation of financial oversight to private stakeholders highlighted misuse of power – Held: Actions violated Article 14, mandating fairness and equality in public governance [Paras 30-40].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The High Court's judgment prohibiting the collection of toll and severing Articles 13 and 14 from the Concession Agreement was upheld. NTBCL was directed to cease toll collection immediately.
 

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.
 

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.