Matrimonial Offences – Quashment of FIR – Section 482 of CrPC – Allegations Omnibus in Nature – FIR Quashed - The appellant accused No.5, wife of accused No.6, challenged the High Court's refusal to quash the FIR despite quashing it for accused No.6 – The Supreme Court observed that allegations against accused No.5 were vague and unsupported by specific evidence, similar to those quashed against her husband (accused No.6) – Referring to Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, the Court held that such allegations were exaggerated and indicative of over-implication – Held: FIR quashed against accused No.5 [Paras 17-21].

Matrimonial Allegations – Relatives Residing Separately – Abuse of Process – FIR Quashed - Applying principles in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, the Court held that distant relatives not residing in the same household as the complainant were over-implicated – Lack of material evidence to connect accused Nos.5 and 6 to alleged harassment reinforced this conclusion – Held: FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed [Paras 22-25].

Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers of High Court – Scope – The Court emphasized the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Filing of the final report or challan does not bar exercising such powers – Held: FIR against accused No.5 quashed to maintain parity with accused No.6.

Decision:

Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3995 of 2022 filed by accused No.5 (Payal Sharma) is allowed, quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings. Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13579 of 2023 filed by the complainant is dismissed, upholding the quashment of FIR against accused No.6 (Subhash Chander Kapila).

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Presumption under Section 20 – High Court’s Judgment Reversed - The appellant contended that the High Court erred in acquitting the respondent despite strong evidence of demand and acceptance of Rs. 2,000 as illegal gratification. The Court observed that the prosecution had established both demand and acceptance of bribe through oral and documentary evidence, corroborated by tape recordings and recovery of tainted currency notes. The presumption under Section 20 was upheld, and the respondent’s defense of a loan transaction was found to lack evidentiary support – Held: The High Court’s acquittal was erroneous, and the trial court’s conviction and sentence were restored.

Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Scope of Presumption – Prosecution’s Burden Discharged - The Court clarified that mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient to establish guilt under Section 7 of the Act unless the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are proved. In this case, both were demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20, once raised, shifts the burden to the accused, which the respondent failed to rebut satisfactorily – Held: Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Appellate Review in Acquittal Appeals – Scope – Judgment of High Court Found Perverse - The Court reiterated the principle that in appeals against acquittal, interference is warranted only when the trial court's findings are unsupported by evidence or are perverse. Here, the High Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly, leading to an unsustainable acquittal. The trial court’s judgment convicting the respondent was reinstated.

Decision: The appeal is allowed. The High Court’s judgment acquitting the respondent is set aside, and the trial court’s judgment convicting the respondent is restored. The respondent is to be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence and pay the fine as imposed by the trial court.

Civil Procedure Code – Territorial Jurisdiction – Specific Performance of Contract – Suit involving immovable property located outside the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court – Proviso to Section 16 CPC held inapplicable – Plaintiff required to file suit in appropriate jurisdiction – Supreme Court dismissed SLP and upheld High Court order returning plaint for presentation in Gurgaon Court [Paras 13–15, 20–21, 33–34].

Contract Law – Specific Performance – Suit Simpliciter Without Possession – Implicit Relief for Possession – Held: Relief of possession of immovable property is inherent in specific performance unless expressly excluded – Registration of sale deed in Gurgaon requires territorial jurisdiction of Gurgaon Court – Interpretation ensures no misuse of procedural laws [Paras 23–24, 32–34].

Specific Relief Act – Sections 22 and 28 – Plaintiff allowed to amend plaint at any stage to include possession – Absence of possession claim in plaint does not alter the nature of the suit – Interplay with Section 55 of Transfer of Property Act discussed – Sale involves possession post-registration [Paras 20, 22–24, 27–28, 32–33].

Judicial Precedents – Applicability of Adcon Electronics Case – Suit for Land – Held: Decision in Adcon Electronics not applicable as it interpreted a different factual matrix – Babu Lal and Harshad Chiman Lal Modi cases govern reliefs involving possession – Emphasis on complete reading of plaint to determine jurisdiction and reliefs [Paras 19–21, 24, 28–29, 31].

Decision: Special Leave Petitions dismissed – Delhi High Court lacks jurisdiction – Plaintiff directed to present plaint in Gurgaon Court – Interim relief vacated [Paras 35–37].

Criminal Law - Public Servants – Requirement of Sanction under Section 197 CrPC – Summoning Order Quashed – The appellant, a District Town Planner, was accused of illegal demolition of a college building – The Court considered whether the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC vitiated the proceedings – Held: The demolition was part of the appellant’s official duties, and no cognizance could have been taken without prior sanction – Summoning order and consequent proceedings quashed, with liberty to seek sanction if deemed appropriate [Paras 24, 33].

Official Duties – Demolition Action – No Evidence of Malice – The appellant argued that the demolition was carried out under superior orders and not independently – The Court noted that the acts were reasonably connected to official duties and could not be termed as an "excess" – Held: There was no malafide intent, and the actions were within the scope of lawful authority [Paras 33-35].

Protection of Public Servants – Object and Scope of Section 197 CrPC – The provision aims to shield public servants from unwarranted harassment and frivolous prosecution for acts performed in official capacity – The Court emphasized that protection applies when acts are connected to duties, even if alleged to be excessive [Paras 36-38].

Decision – The appeal was allowed, summoning orders quashed, and the initiation of the complaint declared non-est – Liberty granted to seek sanction and initiate proceedings in compliance with Section 197 CrPC [Paras 40-41].

Amendment to the Constitution – Preamble – Article 368 – The Parliament's power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution extends to the Preamble, provided it does not violate the basic structure – Held: Amendments adding "socialist" and "secular" do not alter the Constitution's basic structure and are valid [Paras 2-5].

Constitutional Interpretation – Living Document – The Constitution as a living document permits progressive amendments in line with evolving societal needs – Arguments about the omission of terms by the Constituent Assembly do not constrain later amendments – Held: Addition of terms in the Preamble in 1976 reflects India's development of secularism and commitment to equality [Paras 6-10].

Secularism and Socialism – Indian Context – Secularism ensures equality of all religions without bias, in line with Articles 14, 15, and 16 – Socialism under the Indian framework represents a welfare state and the goal of economic and social justice, not a specific economic structure – Held: These terms align with the Constitution's fabric and societal values [Paras 11-14].

Delayed Challenge – Laches – Writ petitions filed 44 years post-amendment without plausible justification – Long-standing acceptance of amendments by "We, the people of India" renders the challenge inadmissible – Held: Dismissal of writ petitions appropriate given the delay and lack of legitimate grounds [Paras 15-17].

Emergency Context – Validity of Amendments – Arguments that amendments enacted during the Emergency lack legitimacy due to a lapsed Lok Sabha term were dismissed – Held: Constitutional amendments must be evaluated on substantive grounds, not procedural irregularities [Paras 18-21].

Impact of Terms – Retrospective Operation – Retrospectivity does not invalidate amendments if they do not contravene constitutional mandates – Held: Preamble's amendment was validly enacted under Article 368 and is not retrospective in essence [Paras 22-24].

Decision:

The writ petitions were dismissed. The court held that the inclusion of "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble by the Forty-second Amendment is valid under Article 368. The petitions lacked merit and were delayed, and there was no cause for interference.

Public Interest Litigation – Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata in PILs – Limited Application - The court clarified that constructive res judicata applies to PILs only to a limited extent – The principle does not bar challenges to subsequent actions or policies arising from independent causes of action, even if connected to prior litigation – Impugned GoM Nos. 243 and 244 were not part of earlier litigation and thus formed a separate challenge – Held: High Court’s application of res judicata and constructive res judicata was erroneous [Paras 28-35].

Constitutional Validity – State Discretion in Allocating Land – Article 14 - Preferential land allotments at basic rates to privileged groups like MLAs, MPs, AIS officers, Judges, and journalists failed to meet constitutional muster – The policy lacked intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the stated objective of addressing housing needs of deserving sections – Held arbitrary and violative of Article 14 [Paras 40-48].

State Largesse – Public Land Allocation – Duty as Trustee - Public resources must be allocated with fairness and equity – Arbitrary concessions to affluent individuals at concessional rates violated public trust and undermined constitutional mandates – Held: Such actions breached principles of equality and public interest [Paras 55-60].

Doctrine of Arbitrariness – Application to State Policies - The court expanded the doctrine of arbitrariness – Arbitrary state actions, even when purporting to follow legal classifications, are unsustainable under Article 14 – Preferential treatment to privileged groups at discounted rates deemed irrational [Paras 80-85].

Judiciary, Legislature, and Executive – Conflict of Interest – Public Trust - Inclusion of Judges, MPs, MLAs, and journalists in land allotment policy compromised public trust – Distribution of largesse to these groups weakened democratic checks and balances – Policy deemed unconstitutional for undermining institutional integrity and promoting hierarchy [Paras 85-86].

Restitution – Refund to Cooperative Societies and Members – Cancellation of Lease Deeds - Cooperative societies and members entitled to refunds of deposited amounts, including stamp duty and development costs, with interest – Lease deeds canceled – Held: State directed to revise policies and manage lands in compliance with law and public interest [Paras 94-96].

Decision: The appeals by the State of Telangana and the Cooperative Societies were dismissed – Appeals challenging the High Court judgment allowed – The land allotment policies were declared unconstitutional for violating Article 14 – Directed the State to refund amounts to cooperative societies with interest and revise policies in compliance with constitutional principles.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellants were convicted for abduction, murder, and destruction of evidence under Sections 364, 302, 201, 212, and 120-B of the IPC – Trial Court sentenced them to life imprisonment – High Court upheld their convictions while acquitting co-accused – Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as evidence was inadmissible or unreliable – Appeal allowed, convictions set aside, and appellants acquitted [Paras 1, 17, 18].

Evidence of Eyewitness (PW-26) – Reliability – PW-26 was the sole eyewitness – Material omissions in her testimony, including lack of prior identification of the accused or their specific roles – No test identification parade was conducted – Husband of PW-26, another alleged eyewitness, was not examined – Held: Testimony of PW-26 is unreliable, and an adverse inference is drawn for withholding material evidence [Paras 5-8].

Circumstantial Evidence – CCTV Footage – CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution lacked a valid certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act – Witnesses (PW-1 and PW-24) admitted no verification of the contents, and the footage could have been tampered with – Trial and High Courts relied on inadmissible footage without viewing it – Supreme Court discarded this evidence, holding it inadmissible and insufficient to prove guilt [Paras 9-12].

Recovery of Dead Body and Articles – Insufficient to Prove Guilt – Body parts of the deceased were recovered based on prior information received by the Police, not at the instance of the accused – Recovery of car, weapon, and articles of the deceased based on disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was insufficient to establish guilt – Prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence [Paras 13, 14].

Confessions to Police – Inadmissibility – Statements made by the accused in police custody, including details of alleged conspiracy and roles of co-accused, were inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act – Inadmissible confessions were improperly incorporated in the testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW-27) – Held: Trial Court erred in relying on inadmissible evidence, which violated the statutory bar against using custodial confessions [Paras 15-16].

Gruesome Nature of Offence – Standard of Proof – Supreme Court emphasized that the brutality of the crime cannot substitute for the legal requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Convictions must rest on cogent, admissible, and clear evidence – Mere suspicion or moral conviction is insufficient for upholding a conviction [Para 17].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgments of the Trial Court and High Court quashed – Appellants acquitted as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Appellants to be released immediately unless required in any other case [Para 18].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation for Accident – Determination of Just Compensation – Appellant suffered 100% permanent disability due to a road accident caused by a rashly driven lorry – Tribunal awarded Rs.58,09,930/- with 6% interest, excluding Rs.1,00,000/- for future medical expenses – High Court enhanced compensation to Rs.78,16,390/- but retained the interest rate – Claimant challenged the calculation of future prospects and inadequacy of compensation under ‘pain and suffering’ [Paras 2, 5.6, 6.2, 7].

Future Prospects – Calculation of Compensation – High Court applied 40% addition for future prospects instead of 50%, as per Pranay Sethi – Appellant contended that being below 40 years and in permanent employment, 50% addition was warranted – Court recalculated income, determining total compensation under loss of future prospects at Rs.75,24,000/- – Total payable compensation revised to Rs.87,29,241/- [Paras 8(i), 9, 10].

Pain and Suffering – Enhanced Compensation – Appellant sustained grievous injuries, including loss of sensation below the neck, complete loss of urinary and bowel control, and permanent wheelchair dependency – Doctor’s assessment confirmed 85% whole-body impairment – Court observed lifelong pain and suffering warranted enhancement of compensation – Award under this head increased from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/- [Paras 8(ii), 11, 12, 15].

Judicial Precedents – Assessment of Pain and Suffering – Court referred to cases such as R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) and Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, emphasizing life-altering impacts and the need for reasonable compensation for permanent disabilities – Court underscored the abstract and artificial nature of calculating non-pecuniary damages [Paras 13, 14].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,02,29,241/- with 6% interest from the date of filing of the special leave petition – Award modified on the grounds of future prospects and pain and suffering – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 16, 17].

Judicial Remarks – Expungement – Adverse Observations Against a Judicial Officer – Appeal Allowed – The appellant, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, sought expungement of remarks in a Delhi High Court order, alleging unnecessary and stigmatizing language used against him. Held: The High Court erred by making personal remarks against the appellant without following natural justice principles and bypassing the administrative side of the judiciary for addressing concerns against subordinate judges. Observations in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned order were expunged [Paras 11-14, 21-22].

Principles of Judicial Discipline – Observations Against Subordinate Judges – Superior courts must exercise restraint while critiquing subordinate judicial officers. Criticism should focus on judicial orders and not the officer personally, as adverse remarks in judgments may harm the officer’s career and erode public confidence in the judiciary. Held: Personal criticisms of judicial officers in judgments should be avoided unless absolutely necessary for the resolution of the case [Paras 16, 19].

Rule of Law – Maintenance of Judicial Independence – Expungement Justified – Judges must remain fearless and independent but should exercise sobriety and moderation in their remarks. The appellate court highlighted that errors in judgments can be corrected without stigmatizing judges. Stigmatizing remarks in judgments undermine judicial independence and discourage robust judicial conduct [Paras 17, 18, 20].

Decision:

The appeals were allowed. Adverse remarks made against the appellant in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the High Court’s first impugned order were expunged. The Court clarified that this decision would not bind the administrative side of the High Court, which could independently address any concerns regarding the appellant's conduct.