Criminal Procedure – Section 311 of CrPC – Recall of Witnesses – Judicial Discretion – The petitioners sought to recall and re-examine several prosecution witnesses, claiming that their previous lawyer had not conducted a proper cross-examination – The trial court rejected this application, and the High Court affirmed the decision – The Supreme Court held that the recall of witnesses under Section 311 is discretionary, and such power is to be used only when the evidence is essential to the just decision of the case – The vague contention of improper cross-examination was not a sufficient ground for recalling the witnesses, and the petitioners were found to be attempting to fill in a lacuna in their defense – Petition dismissed [Paras 6-9].

Section 311 CrPC – Principles for Recalling Witnesses – The Supreme Court reiterated the principles for exercising the power under Section 311, as laid down in Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar, emphasizing that recalling witnesses should be done judiciously and not arbitrarily, and only if it is essential to the just decision of the case – The petitioners' plea was found to lack merit as no substantial prejudice to the defense was demonstrated – No infirmity found in the High Court's order [Para 7].

Filling Lacuna – No Grave Prejudice to Accused – The Court observed that the prayer to recall the witnesses was merely an attempt to fill in the gaps in the defense, which is not permissible under Section 311 – The petitioners failed to show that the non-summoning of witnesses for further cross-examination would cause grave prejudice, or that it was essential for a fair decision – No grounds for recall or re-examination [Para 9].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Merit Found – The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the trial court and the Gauhati High Court, dismissing the Special Leave Petition – The petitioners' request to recall and re-examine the prosecution witnesses was found to lack merit, and no substantial prejudice to the accused was demonstrated – SLP dismissed [Paras 10-11].

Medical Admission – Disability and Eligibility for NEET – The petitioner was disqualified from NEET admission based on a speech and language disability of 44%, as per existing regulations disqualifying candidates with disabilities exceeding 40%. The Supreme Court, referencing a similar precedent, directed the Dean of Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Government Medical College, Pune (BJGMC) to constitute a Medical Board to independently assess whether the petitioner's disability would impede the pursuit of an MBBS degree. The Medical Board's examination and report are to be conducted and submitted by 07.09.2024, with the matter listed for further hearing on 09.09.2024 [Paras 1-8].

Decision: The petitioner's NEET seat is to be kept vacant until further orders. The Medical Board's findings will determine the petitioner's eligibility for the course [Para 10].

Stamp Act – Applicability of Sections 33, 34, 37, and 39 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 – Agreement of sale with possession considered as conveyance – Insufficiently stamped instrument – Jurisdiction of trial court under Section 34 to impose ten times penalty questioned – High Court upheld penalty but Supreme Court found it premature – Direction for instrument to be sent to District Registrar under Section 39 for determination of duty and penalty [Paras 14-23].

Discretionary Jurisdiction – Distinction between powers of trial court under Section 34 and District Registrar under Section 39 – Supreme Court clarified that the trial court lacks discretion to reduce penalty under Section 34, while the District Registrar under Section 39 has the discretion to impose an appropriate penalty – Trial court’s imposition of ten times penalty deemed illegal at the premature stage – Matter directed to be handled by District Registrar [Paras 14.1-14.2, 17-22].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Held – The appeal is allowed in part; the Supreme Court set aside the trial court's imposition of ten times penalty and directed the matter to the District Registrar for determination of the proper duty and penalty. The instrument is to be admitted in evidence upon compliance, with all other objections reserved for consideration [Paras 23-24].

Stamp Duty – Imposition of Penalty – The appellant challenged the trial court’s order directing payment of ten times the deficit stamp duty penalty under Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. The appellant contended that the penalty should not have been imposed at the interlocutory stage and instead argued for the application of Section 37(2), allowing for a determination of penalty by the District Registrar. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, affirming the applicability of Section 34 based on the appellant’s prior consent to the court’s decision, and upheld the penalty imposition [Paras 1-12].

Specific Performance – Suit Agreement – The appellant sought specific performance of an agreement of sale dated November 04, 1996, and the cancellation of a subsequent sale deed. The trial court imposed a significant penalty on the deficit stamp duty due to the agreement’s inadequate stamping. The Supreme Court confirmed that the trial court was correct in invoking Section 34 of the Act and that the appellant could not retroactively opt for a different procedure under Section 37(2) [Paras 2-9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision to impose a ten times penalty on the deficit stamp duty, affirming that the appellant’s request to reconsider under a different section was not permissible. No order as to costs [Paras 11-12].

Arbitration – Applicability of Arbitration Act vs. Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal – Section 7, Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 – Arbitration clause in contract – Jurisdictional conflict resolved in favor of the Arbitration Act – High Court set aside award based on 1983 Act – Supreme Court reinstates appeal for merits consideration – Held – High Court's judgment set aside – Case remanded for fresh consideration without setting aside the award solely on jurisdictional grounds. [Paras 1-10].

Article 142 – Exercise of Jurisdiction for Complete Justice – Failure to raise objection at the appropriate stage – Supreme Court intervenes to ensure fair adjudication – High Court directed to decide the appeal on merits without jurisdictional technicalities undermining justice. [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act restored for merits-based adjudication – Deposit of the awarded amount required pending final decision. [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – FIR under Section 406 IPC and Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Complainant filed an FIR against his daughter’s former in-laws alleging non-return of 'stridhan' – Supreme Court quashed the proceedings based on the absence of evidence to prove the entrustment of property and misappropriation by the accused – The Court highlighted the principle that a woman holds absolute ownership of her 'stridhan' and only she has the authority to claim it – Delay of over 20 years in filing the complaint and the complainant’s lack of locus standi further invalidated the case – Appeal allowed and proceedings quashed [Paras 9-20].

Evidence Evaluation – Lack of Proof of Entrustment – The Court found no evidence of the complainant having entrusted the 'stridhan' to the accused – The complainant’s claims were unsupported by any documentation or witness testimony – Previous divorce settlements had already resolved all property disputes – The Court reaffirmed that the complainant, not being the owner of the 'stridhan,' had no legal standing to file the FIR – [Paras 14-16].

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Held – The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it due to lack of evidence, absence of legal standing, and the significant delay in filing the complaint – The judgment emphasizes the misuse of criminal proceedings as a tool for harassment and reaffirms the sole authority of women over their 'stridhan' – [Paras 17-21].

Contempt of Court – Non-Appearance of Counsel – Supreme Court addressed the issue of counsels marking online appearances in proceedings without being physically or virtually present – Court emphasized that only those advocates who are actively participating in the hearing, either in person or via video conferencing, should be allowed to mark their presence online – The Court noted the potential negative implications on the integrity of the proceedings and the legal profession if this practice continues – Orders were given to the Supreme Court Bar Association and Advocates on Record Association to ensure strict compliance with this directive. [Paras 3-7]

Judicial Administration – Court Procedures – The Court observed the misuse of the online appearance marking system by certain advocates who were neither present in court nor assisting in proceedings – Directed that online appearances should only be marked for those advocates who are physically or virtually present and participating in the proceedings – Aimed at maintaining the sanctity of court proceedings and ensuring fairness in the legal profession. [Paras 4-6]

Decision – Case Reserved for Orders – Supreme Court reserved the case for orders after hearing the arguments and addressing the issues related to the marking of online appearances by counsels – Directed that further hearing would continue on the specified date with instructions for parties to submit relevant documents as deemed necessary. [Paras 9-10]

Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds – Creation of Security – Equitable Mortgage – Appellant claimed a mortgage was created by the respondent by depositing title deeds as security for a loan. The Single Judge held that a valid mortgage had been created under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the Division Bench reversed the judgment, concluding that the evidence did not prove the creation of a mortgage. The Supreme Court restored the judgment of the Single Judge, holding that the agreement between the parties constituted an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds and that the Division Bench had erred in its interpretation [Paras 22-30].

Burden of Proof – Coercion and Threat – Respondent’s plea of coercion in signing the agreement was rejected due to the absence of supporting evidence. The Court emphasized that mere allegations without evidence cannot negate the legal effect of the agreement [Paras 24-25].

Registration Requirements – Section 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act – The Court reiterated that a memorandum recording the deposit of title deeds as security does not require registration unless it creates or extinguishes rights or liabilities. In the present case, the agreement did not require registration as it merely recorded the transaction already concluded [Paras 26-29].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of the Single Judge restored with a modification – Interest reduced from 36% p.a. to 12% p.a. – Costs imposed on the appellant for legal misadventure [Paras 33-36].

Criminal Law – Revision against Framing of Charges – High Court's Revisionary Power under Section 397 Cr.P.C. – Further Investigation Ordered by High Court Challenged – The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court could set aside a Sessions Court order framing charges and order further investigation – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing the revision application and discharging the accused despite previous dismissal of a similar application – Held, High Court’s order was illegal, and the framing of charges was restored by the Supreme Court [Paras 1-13].

Criminal Procedure – Section 397 Cr.P.C. – Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court – The Supreme Court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is limited, particularly against interlocutory orders like framing of charges – The High Court improperly exercised this power, leading to the setting aside of its order [Paras 9-11].

Costs and Directions – The Supreme Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the Respondent for filing frivolous applications and directed the Sessions Court to expedite the trial, warning that non-cooperation by the accused could lead to cancellation of bail [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restoring the original order of the Sessions Court that framed charges against the accused – The Respondent was directed to pay costs to the Appellant and cooperate with the trial proceedings [Paras 13-15].