Second Complaint – Maintainability – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Appeal Allowed – The issue involved whether the second complaint, filed with the same allegations as a previously dismissed complaint following acceptance of a final police report, was maintainable. Held: A second complaint on identical facts is generally not maintainable when the first was disposed of on merits unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. The Court upheld the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order dismissing the second complaint, determining that it mirrored the original complaint in both facts and allegations and did not introduce new grounds [Paras 5, 20, 31-32].

Interpretation of Section 300 Cr.P.C. – Application of Double Jeopardy Principles – 'Autrefois Acquit' and 'Autrefois Convict' – Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. invokes the doctrine of double jeopardy, barring a subsequent trial for the same offense if previously tried. However, the Court held this principle inapplicable here as no trial or acquittal/conviction occurred under the initial complaint. Reiterated that procedural dismissals do not constitute acquittal or bar further proceedings unless substantive judgment is reached on identical allegations [Para 9].

Magistrate's Discretion on Protest Petitions – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 156(3), 173, and 202 – No Blanket Bar on Second Complaint – Reviewed four options available to a Magistrate upon receiving a negative report: (1) accepting and closing proceedings; (2) ordering further investigation; (3) conducting or delegating investigation; or (4) taking cognizance as a private complaint. Noted that while second complaints are permissible in limited situations, they require new facts or exceptional justification, which was not presented in this case [Para 12].

Exceptional Circumstances Standard – Absence of New Evidence or Miscarriage in Initial Complaint – The Court emphasized that maintaining repeated complaints requires evidence of exceptional circumstances, such as new facts or procedural errors in the initial handling. Here, the second complaint did not present new evidence or allege factual misunderstandings, and hence failed to meet the standard for exceptional circumstances [Paras 16, 25, 31].

Decision - Judicial Finality and Preventing Abuse of Process – Court affirmed the dismissal of repetitive litigation tactics, emphasizing the judiciary's responsibility to curb frustrated or malicious litigants from repeatedly challenging procedural orders absent substantial grounds. Noted this approach safeguards judicial resources and protects individuals from harassment through legal process [Para 32].
 

Resolution Plan – Approval – IBC, 2016 – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant, Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, contested the reduced allocation in the approved resolution plan for recovering dues from the corporate debtor and challenged procedural and statutory non-compliance. Held: The Committee of Creditors (CoC)’s approval of the resolution plan falls within its commercial discretion, and courts must not intervene absent statutory violations. The appellant’s claim was rightly addressed within the plan's framework, and the plan's terms were found to conform to legal requirements, including IBC's prioritization over SEZ Act obligations [Paras 10, 20, 32-35].

Overriding Effect of IBC over SEZ Act – Section 238 of IBC – The Court confirmed that IBC’s provisions supersede those of the SEZ Act where conflicts arise. The appellant’s demands for additional fees and statutory payments were deemed subordinate to the approved resolution plan under Section 238, validating SEZ payment exemptions granted to the resolution applicant. The SEZ provisions must yield where they conflict with IBC objectives of corporate resolution [Para 27].

Valuation Dispute – Limited Judicial Review – Addressing the appellant’s challenge to asset valuation, the Court reaffirmed that valuation under IBC is a factual determination within the CoC’s purview, insulated from judicial review barring procedural breaches. The CoC had reasonably adopted a fair market value assessment, consistent with Section 35 of IBC [Para 24].

Commercial Wisdom of CoC – Judicial Restraint – The Court underscored the principle of non-interference with the CoC’s commercial decisions, affirming that statutory guidelines limit judicial oversight to instances of illegality. Here, the CoC’s financial determinations, including treatment of operational creditors, followed the prescribed IBC process and required no intervention [Paras 31, 36].

Exemptions from Statutory Payments in Resolution Plan – Appellant’s claim that the resolution plan contravened SEZ guidelines on transfer fees was dismissed, with the Court upholding that CoC-approved exemptions are binding under IBC. The judgment reinforced that any demand conflicting with the resolution’s framework post-approval is non-maintainable [Para 28].

Decision:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the NCLAT judgment dated 14.02.2022 and the preceding NCLT orders, upholding the resolution plan’s validity and its allocation scheme. The Court emphasized that IBC's overriding provisions preclude additional demands by operational creditors post-resolution. The resolution plan’s implementation, including payment to the appellant, was confirmed as lawful and conclusive.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Alleged Offenses under IPC and Atrocities Act – FIR filed for offenses under Sections 376(2)(N) and 506 of IPC, along with Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(w), and 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – High Court quashed proceedings on the basis of an alleged settlement between the parties, directing the complainant to refund compensation – Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, remanded the case for verification of settlement, and ordered inquiry if necessary [Paras 2, 9-14].
Settlement in Non-Compoundable Offenses – Guidelines for High Court – Supreme Court emphasized that in cases of serious offenses, especially those involving women and marginalized groups, High Court must ensure the genuineness of settlement – Advised personal presence or virtual appearance of the victim for verification – Directed that affidavits by illiterate complainants must include endorsements that contents were explained in the complainant's language – Found High Court erred by accepting affidavits without proper inquiry into their authenticity or securing complainant’s presence [Paras 7-9].
Evidentiary Concerns – Affidavits and Thumb Impressions – Allegations of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of affidavits – Affidavits lacked endorsements explaining content to the illiterate complainant – Appellant argued coercion and improper procedure in obtaining thumb impressions – Supreme Court directed the High Court to examine the appellant’s claims through inquiry by a Judicial Officer if needed [Paras 8-10].
Seriousness of Offenses – Impact on Society – Supreme Court noted that offenses under Section 376(2)(N) IPC and Atrocities Act are grave and affect society at large – Held that even if a settlement is genuine, the court must independently assess whether quashing proceedings would serve justice – Highlighted the need for caution in quashing cases of such nature [Para 7].
Directions on Remand – Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court for fresh consideration – Directed the appellant to be present before the High Court to clarify her stance – Allowed appellant to file an affidavit addressing the alleged settlement – Empowered the High Court to order an inquiry into the execution of affidavits – High Court instructed to assess both the genuineness of the settlement and the appropriateness of quashing proceedings under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution [Paras 10-14].
Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order quashing criminal proceedings – Restored the quashing petition for reconsideration by the High Court – Directed specific steps for verifying the settlement and deciding its legal effect – Observed that serious offenses demand rigorous judicial scrutiny before quashing [Paras 12-16].
 

Judicial Independence – Financial Independence of Judges – Non-discrimination based on Source of Appointment – Held: High Court judges, irrespective of their recruitment source (Bar or judicial service), are entitled to uniform financial benefits to maintain judicial independence – Differentiation between judges based on their pre-appointment service violates Articles 14 and 217 – Directed all judges to have access to the General Provident Fund – The communication dated 13 December 2022 was quashed as unconstitutional [Paras 10-20].

Provident Fund – Section 20 of the High Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 – Scope of Proviso – Mandate to extend GPF benefits to all judges of the High Court – Proviso interpreted as preserving benefits accrued before High Court appointment without creating a discriminatory regime – Directed refund of New Pension Scheme contributions and opening of GPF accounts for petitioners [Paras 22-28].

Constitutional Interpretation – Uniform Service Conditions – Financial Security as Integral to Judicial Independence – Emphasized: Salaries, allowances, and pensions of High Court judges determined by parliamentary enactments to ensure uniformity – Article 221 prohibits discriminatory service terms – Equality in post-retirement benefits like GPF underlines judiciary’s homogeneity [Paras 30-33].

Decision: The petitions were allowed, directing that:

A General Provident Fund account be opened for the petitioners, effective from their date of appointment as High Court judges.

Contributions under the New Pension Scheme be refunded to petitioners within four weeks.

The impugned communication dated 13 December 2022 be quashed.

Service Law - Recruitment Qualification – Prescribed vs. Equivalent Qualifications – Rule Interpretation – The qualification specified for the post of LDC was a Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation from an approved institution. The Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) initially took a strict stance against recognizing higher qualifications, such as a Diploma in Computer Applications (DCA), as equivalent. The Court held that the Rules of 2011 did not provide for an equivalent qualification to the prescribed certificate, thus precluding DCA and similar qualifications – Held: The prescribed qualification requirement is limited to specific certificate holders, and the equivalence pertains only to the institution, not the qualification [Paras 15-17].

Doctrine of Estoppel – Consistent Stance Required from Public Bodies – The Court observed that the KPSC's inconsistent stance—initially opposing and later supporting the inclusion of DCA holders—led to protracted litigation. The KPSC, a statutory authority, was expected to maintain consistency and transparency in its actions, as inconsistent positions undermine the predictability required under the rule of law – Held: The KPSC is estopped from changing its stance on the eligibility of DCA holders after previously asserting that DCA was not a valid qualification [Paras 20, 24-27].

Equivalence of Higher Qualifications – Requirement of Foundational Inquiry – The Court held that the KPSC failed to conduct a foundational inquiry into whether higher qualifications like DCA presuppose the skills imparted by the prescribed Certificate in Data Entry and Office Automation. The KPSC’s assumption that higher computer-related degrees or diplomas automatically included data entry and office automation skills was arbitrary and unsupported by evidence – Held: KPSC’s decision to treat DCA as equivalent to the prescribed certificate without inquiry was arbitrary and lacked rational basis [Paras 21-23].

Rule of Law – Importance of Predictability and Consistency – The Court emphasized that public authorities must act with consistency to uphold citizens' expectations of fairness and stability in decision-making. Citing the principles of regularity and predictability, the Court criticized the KPSC's arbitrary shift in position, as it resulted in needless litigation and uncertainty for affected candidates – Held: The KPSC’s deviation from its initial stance without public interest justification violates the principles of fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution [Para 26].

Procedural Fairness – Representation of Interested Parties – The Court rejected the appellants' contention that all affected candidates had not been impleaded, noting that over 100 candidates with DCA or higher qualifications were already parties, which was sufficient representation of their collective interest. The Court held that the purpose of Rule 148 of the Kerala High Court Rules is to ensure representation of affected persons, not to delay proceedings by requiring individual impleadment of each candidate – Held: No merit in the argument of non-impleadment due to sufficient representation of the affected group [Para 11].

Decision – The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court’s decision to exclude candidates with DCA or higher qualifications from the LDC selection process, affirming that only those with the prescribed qualification were eligible. The appeals were dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs [Paras 28].
 

Compassionate Appointment – Rejection on Grounds of Delay – Appeal Dismissed – Opportunity Granted for Ex-Gratia Compensation [Paras 1–26].
Compassionate Appointment – Claim by Minor Dependent – Delay Beyond Policy Period – Appellant’s father, a Haryana Police constable, died on duty in 1997 – Minor dependent’s claim recorded in Minor’s Register in 1998 – Appellant attained majority in 2008 and applied for compassionate appointment – Claim rejected in 2009 on the grounds of delay beyond the three-year period prescribed in Government instructions dated 22.03.1999 – 2006 Rules under which the claim was considered did not provide for compassionate appointments – Held: Compassionate appointment is not a vested right; rejection of claim upheld [Paras 1–6, 13–16].

Promissory Estoppel – Not Applicable in the Absence of Statutory Backing – Appellant contended that communications from authorities promising consideration for appointment created legitimate expectation – Supreme Court held: Entries in Minor’s Register or administrative communications do not create enforceable rights absent statutory support – Principle of promissory estoppel inapplicable as the 1999 instructions prescribed a three-year limit for such claims [Paras 3–5, 9–12].

Compassionate Appointment – Objective and Limitation – Purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to families facing destitution due to the loss of the sole breadwinner – Policies prescribing time limits for claiming such benefits are reasonable – Held: Appellant’s claim after 11 years from the father’s death fell outside the scope of such policies [Paras 13–15].

Ex-Gratia Compensation – Opportunity Granted for Consideration – Claim for compassionate appointment remained pending until rejection in 2009 – Government of Haryana’s 2011 decision provided a one-time relaxation for old cases to apply for ex-gratia compensation – Widow of deceased employee not informed of this option – Held: Widow permitted to submit a representation for lump sum ex-gratia compensation – Authorities to decide within six weeks of receipt, failing which interest at 6% per annum shall be payable [Paras 17–23].

Decision: 
Appeal dismissed as regards compassionate appointment.
Opportunity granted to widow of the deceased to apply for ex-gratia compensation.
Authorities directed to decide representation within six weeks – No interest on timely disbursal, but interest at 6% applicable for delays.
No order as to costs [Paras 23–26].
 

Criminal Law – Bail - Jurisdiction of Court in Bail Conditions – Extent of Conditions under Sections 437(3) and 439 CrPC – Conditions for Bail Set Aside - The High Court, while granting bail to the appellants, imposed conditions mandating the removal of a wall and transferring possession of disputed property to the complainant, thus encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the civil courts in pending civil suits – Held: The Court in granting bail should impose conditions solely related to ensuring the presence of the accused in trial; any condition overreaching into civil rights or property possession is improper and beyond the scope of bail proceedings [Paras 14-16].

Reasonable Conditions in Bail – Discretion of Courts – Case Law Emphasis on Restraint - Citing precedent, the Supreme Court emphasized that the "any condition" discretion under Section 437(3) CrPC must be reasonably exercised and must not interfere with civil rights or encumber the rights of parties in a civil dispute – Extreme conditions such as those imposed in this case may amount to an unlawful exercise of judicial discretion [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed; Bail Conditions Modified - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's conditions involving property possession and removal of structural obstructions, directing that none of its findings be prejudicial to the rights of either party in ongoing civil litigation. Appellants are granted bail upon furnishing a bond with all other conditions of the High Court order remaining in force [Paras 16-18].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Appeal Against Acquittal – The appellants were convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of the deceased, Naseem Khan, under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, based on testimonies of the deceased’s family members as eyewitnesses and corroborative medical evidence – Upon appeal, the High Court reversed the conviction, granting benefit of doubt to the accused due to inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses – The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s acquittal, emphasizing that appellate interference in acquittal judgments is warranted only when there is clear perversity in evidence appreciation by the lower courts [Paras 1, 5, 8, 24, 30].

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Contradictions – Family Members as Eyewitnesses – Key witnesses (PWs 5 and 9, minor brothers of the deceased, and PW 8, the mother) claimed to have seen the attack – The Trial Court relied on their testimonies, finding corroboration with medical evidence – The High Court, however, deemed their testimonies unreliable due to contradictions and omissions, noting significant discrepancies between their court statements and earlier police statements – Testimonies were found to be inconsistent, as witnesses failed to mention crucial details in initial statements, such as the specifics of the alleged attack and an oral dying declaration, undermining credibility [Paras 5, 20, 23, 28, 29].

Oral Dying Declaration – Veracity and Evidentiary Value – The mother (PW-8) claimed that the deceased made a dying declaration implicating the accused – The High Court questioned its reliability, highlighting that neither this statement nor corroborative evidence of the deceased’s ability to speak was present in initial police records or statements of other witnesses – The Court cited legal principles on caution in accepting verbal dying declarations, especially when first introduced in court testimony – Absence of corroboration and significant omissions justified rejection of the dying declaration as evidence [Paras 10, 17, 20, 22].

First Information Report (FIR) – Evidentiary Role and Limitations – The Court clarified that while an FIR is not an exhaustive account, it serves as an important document for setting the criminal law in motion – Omissions of vital facts in the FIR, like the alleged dying declaration, raised concerns about witness reliability and the prosecution’s case – These omissions affected the credibility of PW-8, weakening the prosecution’s stance, as such information was expected to be present in initial reports if genuine [Paras 11, 13, 15, 16].

Eyewitness Testimonies – Inconsistencies Among Witnesses – Other eyewitnesses, including PWs 2 and 17, either turned hostile or provided contradictory accounts – PW-17’s testimony that the accused threw the deceased on a stone boulder was inconsistent with the medical evidence, which did not support this mode of injury – Such contradictions, coupled with the absence of corroborative detail from PW-8 and other witnesses, led the High Court to reject these testimonies as unreliable [Paras 27, 28].

Necroscopical Evidence – Cause of Death – The medical evidence, presented through the testimony of PW-1 and the postmortem report, confirmed that the injuries sustained by Naseem Khan were sufficient to cause death – Both the Trial Court and High Court agreed on the homicidal nature of the death but diverged on the identification of the perpetrators due to the inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts [Paras 24, 25].

Judgment on Acquittal – Scope of Appellate Review in Acquittal Cases – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal, reiterating that appellate courts should interfere in acquittals only if there is a clear perversity or error in evidence appraisal – Referring to precedents, the Court emphasized that if the view taken by the High Court is reasonable, even if not the sole possible view, it should be upheld to avoid unwarranted appellate interference in acquittal judgments [Paras 7, 8, 26, 29].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, acquitting the accused based on inconsistencies and gaps in witness testimonies – The accused were acquitted due to lack of conclusive evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Para 30].

Consumer Law - Medical Negligence – Allegation of Negligent Surgery – Complainant claimed that surgery for congenital ptosis (drooping eyelid) in minor patient, performed by Dr. Neeraj Sud at PGI, Chandigarh, was conducted negligently, worsening the patient’s condition instead of improving it – State Commission initially dismissed complaint, finding no evidence of negligence, but NCDRC reversed this decision, awarding compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 and costs to complainants for alleged negligent treatment by the doctor – Supreme Court held that mere deterioration of condition post-surgery does not imply actionable negligence without evidence showing lack of due skill or care by the medical professional – Appeal allowed and judgment of the NCDRC set aside – Held: Negligence cannot be presumed without proof of failure to exercise requisite skill and due care by a qualified doctor [Paras 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16].

Standards for Medical Negligence – Duty of Care – Supreme Court reiterates the three key components of actionable negligence in medical cases: duty of care, breach of duty, and consequential harm – Reference made to Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee and Jacob Mathews v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that a doctor is not liable for negligence if he acted in accordance with acceptable medical practice – Bolam’s Test applied, wherein a doctor is deemed not negligent if treatment follows accepted norms within the medical community, absent evidence from an expert body to show a deviation from standard practice – Held: No actionable negligence was established as the doctor possessed requisite skill and performed surgery as per acceptable medical norms [Paras 14, 16, 17].

Evidence – Lack of Proof of Negligence – Complainants relied on medical records indicating deterioration post-surgery but did not provide expert testimony to substantiate negligence or deviation from standard medical practices by the doctor – The Court observed that worsening condition alone does not suffice to prove negligence in the absence of evidence showing inadequate care or lack of skill – Held: Without clear evidence showing that Dr. Neeraj Sud lacked the requisite skill or failed to exercise due diligence, allegations of negligence are unsubstantiated [Paras 8, 13, 15, 18].

Decision – Judgment Reversal – Supreme Court reverses NCDRC’s judgment which had partly allowed the complainants’ appeal by awarding compensation for alleged negligence – Court restores the State Commission’s original order, which found no evidence of negligence on part of the doctor or the PGI – Civil Appeal No. 272 of 2012 by Dr. Neeraj Sud allowed, while Civil Appeal No. 5526 of 2012 by complainants dismissed – Held: No compensation awarded as complainants failed to establish negligence, no enhancement possible [Paras 19, 20, 21].