Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide (Section 306 IPC) – Quashing of Proceedings –  applicability of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in the context of the appellant’s involvement in the alleged abetment of suicide. The Court examined the evidence and allegations to ascertain the presence of incitement or instigation leading to the suicide. [Para 1, 7-11]

Absence of Proximate Incitement – held – emphasized that for establishing the charge of abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be a clear act of instigation or incitement to commit suicide. Mere allegations or indirect insinuations are insufficient. In this case, the Court found no proximate or direct incitement by the appellant leading to the suicide of the deceased. [Para 10-11]

Significance of Temporal Proximity – applied – underlined the necessity of temporal proximity between the accused's actions and the victim's suicide. The Court noted the absence of evidence indicating the appellant's involvement or communication with the deceased near the time of the suicide, leading to the conclusion that there was no abetment. [Para 9-11]

Quashing of Proceedings – Decision – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and quashed the proceedings against the appellant, citing insufficient evidence to sustain the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The Court clarified that this decision pertains exclusively to the appellant, allowing the trial court to proceed against other accused in accordance with the law. [Para 12]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings against the appellant, Amudha, in the context of the alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. [Para 13]

Transfer of Civil Suit – Jurisdiction –  Court considered the appropriate jurisdiction for a civil suit involving specific performance of a Memorandum of Understanding related to immovable property. The suit was filed by respondent no.1 in Sehore, Madhya Pradesh, with a counter-suit by petitioner in Calcutta, West Bengal. The Court evaluated the principles under Sections 16 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to determine the competent court for adjudicating the dispute. [Paras 1-6, 8-9]

Jurisdiction Determination under CPC – held – emphasized that jurisdiction for suits concerning immovable property is primarily determined by the location of the property as per Section 16, CPC, and not by the place of execution of the agreement or the residence of the parties. Section 20, CPC, was found to be a residuary provision not applicable in the current scenario. [Para 6]

Precedence of Filing and Section 10, CPC – applied – The Court noted the application of Section 10, CPC, mandating that no court shall proceed with a trial if the matter in issue is already pending before another competent court. The precedence of filing and the consequent stay of later suits were considered vital in adjudicating the transfer petitions. [Para 7]

Decision – Transfer of Suit to Sehore, Madhya Pradesh – The Supreme Court dismissed Transfer Petition (C) No.2664 of 2023, thereby upholding the jurisdiction of the Sehore court for the suit filed by respondent no.1. Concurrently, Transfer Petition (C) No.499 of 2024 was allowed, transferring the suit filed by the petitioner in Calcutta to Sehore, Madhya Pradesh, for consolidated proceedings. [Paras 8-9]

Directive for Consolidated Proceedings – The Court directed the transfer of relevant records to the Court of Principle Judge, Sehore, and allowed the petitioner to withdraw the transferred suit or file a counterclaim in the existing suit in Sehore, Madhya Pradesh. The matter was ordered to proceed from the stage it was left at the City Civil Court, Calcutta, West Bengal. [Paras 9-11]

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Dismissal – The Supreme Court deliberated on the bail granted to the accused in a murder case by the High Court, emphasizing the need for detailed reasoning in bail decisions. The case involved the alleged involvement of the respondent in a murder, not initially named in the FIR but later implicated through investigation. [Para 2-8]

Consideration of Bail Applications – held – the Supreme Court underscored the importance of detailed examination and reasoning in bail applications, especially in cases involving heinous crimes. It criticized the High Court's cursory analysis and reliance on the respondent's arguments without thorough consideration of the materials against him. [Para 4, 8]

Reversal of High Court’s Bail Order – applied – The Supreme Court found that the High Court's order granting bail lacked proper legal foundation and detailed reasoning. This omission was deemed particularly significant given the gravity of the crime involved. [Para 8]

Decision – Cancellation of Bail – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and canceling the bail of the respondent. The respondent was given three weeks to surrender, with the clarification that this order would not prejudice future proceedings related to the crime nor prevent the respondent from applying for bail anew. [Para 9]

Criminal Law – Unresolved Homicide – CBI Investigation Ordered – In Awungshi Chirmayi and Anr. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., the Supreme Court dealt with the circumstances of an unresolved homicide case involving a 25-year-old woman from Manipur. The case exhibited inconsistencies and inconclusive evidence from the initial investigations. The Supreme Court, noting the ineffectiveness of the police investigation and the peculiar circumstances of the case, ordered a CBI investigation. [Para 3, 5-7, 9-11, 16-17]

Investigation Standards – Efficacy and Fairness – The Court emphasized the importance of effective and fair investigation in criminal cases, underscoring that unresolved crimes diminish public trust in law enforcement institutions. The case highlights the challenges faced by the kin of the deceased who reside in remote areas in seeking justice. [Para 16]

Jurisdiction and Powers of the Supreme Court – Intervention in Criminal Investigations – The Supreme Court reiterated its wide powers to direct further investigation in criminal matters, irrespective of the stage of the case. This intervention is warranted in situations where the existing investigation fails to provide conclusive results or raise public confidence in its outcomes. [Para 13-14, 16]

Right to Fair Investigation – Principle Upheld – The decision reaffirms the principle that every citizen, irrespective of their geographical location or background, has a right to a fair and thorough investigation in criminal matters. The Court's intervention reflects its commitment to ensuring justice and credibility in the investigative process. [Para 15-16]

Decision – Transfer of Case to CBI – The Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order and directed the transfer of the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a comprehensive investigation. This decision was made to address the concerns of the appellants, ensure an unbiased probe, and apprehend the true perpetrators. [Para 17]

Criminal Procedure – Transfer of Investigation – The Court instructed the Special Investigation Team (SIT), previously handling the case, to transfer all relevant documents and findings to the CBI. The CBI is mandated to conduct an expedited investigation and submit a report or charge sheet to the competent court. [Para 17]

Taxation – State Sales Tax – Silk Fabrics – The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the Delhi Government was authorized to levy a state sales tax on silk sarees, considering the provisions of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957, and the interplay with the Constitution of India. The primary issue was the applicability of different tax rates on silk fabrics and the legal ramifications of these changes. [Para 1-4, 6]

Interpretation of Legislative Provisions – Silk Sarees as 'Declared Goods' – The appellant contended that silk sarees, being 'declared goods' under the ADE Act, were exempt from state sales tax. The Supreme Court examined this contention in the light of various legislative acts and constitutional provisions, specifically focusing on the implications of the ADE Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. [Para 3, 6-7]

Legality of Tax Levy – The Court assessed the legality of the Delhi Government's imposition of state sales tax on silk sarees. The examination included a detailed analysis of legislative changes, historical amendments, and the distribution of tax proceeds under different acts. The interpretation of specific provisions of the Delhi Sales Tax Act and the ADE Act formed a significant part of the judgment. [Para 5-7, 9]

Decision – Upholding of Tax Levy – The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court's judgment, affirming the Delhi Government's right to levy state sales tax on silk sarees. It was held that the changes in the legislative framework and the specifics of the Delhi Sales Tax Act allowed for such a levy, notwithstanding the provisions of the ADE Act and the CST Act. The Court concluded that the levy of state sales tax on silk sarees was legally valid. [Para 8-10]

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – The Supreme Court in this appeal set aside the judgments of the Karnataka High Court and the trial court, leading to the acquittal of the appellants. The case hinged on circumstantial evidence, and the apex court found that the circumstances were insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Para 8-19]

Last Seen Theory – Re-evaluated – The Court examined the 'last seen' theory, finding that the mere presence of the appellants near the crime scene, without clear evidence showing the deceased was last seen with them, could not lead to a conclusion of guilt. This evaluation undermined a critical aspect of the prosecution's argument. [Para 12-14]

Motive – Inconclusive Evidence – The High Court's reversal of the trial court's finding on motive was upheld, as the prosecution failed to provide convincing evidence to establish a motive for the crime. This further weakened the prosecution's case. [Para 15]

Recovery of Weapon – Insufficient to Establish Guilt – The recovery of the weapon from an open area accessible to many was not deemed sufficient to conclusively link the appellants to the crime. The Court highlighted that reliance on this sole factor was inadequate for a conviction. [Para 16]

Conviction under Section 304 Part-I of IPC – Lack of Explanation – The Court noted that the High Court's modification of the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I of IPC was without adequate reasoning, which contributed to the decision to set aside the conviction. [Para 17]

Decision – Acquittal – Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances required for a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence. Consequently, the appellants were acquitted of all charges. [Para 18-19]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal of Rape Charges –  Appeal by accused challenging conviction by the Trial Court under Sections 342, 376, and 201 of IPC – High Court affirmed the conviction – Supreme Court analysis based on evidence, including WhatsApp conversations and circumstantial aspects – Held, the evidence of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence due to the consensual nature of the relationship and lack of evidence of forcible intercourse – Conviction overturned and appellant acquitted. [Paras 1-24]

Consent in Rape Cases – Analysis and Consideration – Court examines consent in rape allegations – Considered continuous and consensual communication between the appellant and prosecutrix, mutual travel, and absence of resistance or complaint – Noted absence of injuries or resistance – Held, circumstances and evidence indicate consensual relationship rather than rape – Acquittal based on failure of prosecution to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 12-16, 18-19]

Section 114A of Evidence Act – Inapplicability  – Court discusses applicability of Section 114A of the Evidence Act, which presumes absence of consent in rape prosecutions – Held, Section 114A not applicable as the appellant was not charged under the specific clause of IPC required for the presumption to operate – Prosecution required to prove non-consent, which it failed to do. [Paras 11, 17]

Admissibility of WhatsApp Conversations – Legal Principles – Court addresses the admissibility of WhatsApp conversations without a Section 65B certificate under the Evidence Act – Found that even if admitted, such evidence does not conclusively prove non-consent or forcible intercourse in the present case. [Paras 20-21]

Decision – Acquittal on Rape Charges –  Court acquits appellant Pankaj Singh of all charges due to insufficient evidence of non-consensual intercourse – Sets aside lower courts’ convictions – Appellant’s bail bond cancelled and pending applications disposed of. [Paras 22-25]

Preventive Detention – Validity – Analysis of Legality – validity of the preventive detention order passed under the Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1986. The appellant was preventively detained on the grounds of involvement in a series of thefts and robberies, purportedly disturbing public order. The court scrutinized the role of the detaining authority and the Advisory Board in issuing and affirming the detention order. [Para 3, 35, 49-59]

Role of Advisory Board in Preventive Detention – Emphasized – Court emphasized the significant role of the Advisory Board in preventive detention cases. It noted that the Board should not merely act as a rubber-stamping authority for detention orders but must actively scrutinize the legality and necessity of detention, keeping in mind constitutional safeguards and judicial precedents. [Para 50-63]

Order of Preventive Detention – Quashed – Based on the analysis, the Supreme Court quashed the order of preventive detention for lacking sufficient grounds to assert that the appellant's activities affected public order. The court also set aside the High Court's judgment affirming the detention order and ordered the appellant's immediate release, subject to any other lawful detention. [Para 64-67]

Guidance to State Authorities – Issued – The court issued guidance to state authorities on exercising preventive detention powers judiciously, cautioning against their routine or mechanical use. It underscored the need for a thorough and lawful process in deciding preventive detentions, aligning with constitutional mandates. [Para 44, 47, 67]

Decision – Appeals allowed; preventive detention orders against appellants quashed – Emphasis on proper scrutiny by the Advisory Board and adherence to legal standards in passing detention orders under preventive detention laws. [Paras 64-67]

Legal Validity of Employee Transfers - Standing Orders under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - Challenge to transfer of employees by M/s. Divgi Metal Wares Ltd. under Clause 20 of the Standing Orders - Clause included transfers within company's establishments across India - High Court judgment set aside by Supreme Court, ruling transfers valid. [Paras 1, 2.1-2.8, 3-17]

Interpretation of Standing Orders and Employment Contracts - Compatibility of Standing Orders with terms of appointment and confirmation orders - Supreme Court upholds that transfer clauses in employment contracts are not in conflict with Standing Orders - Reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Cipla Ltd. vs Jayakumar R. and Another (1999) 1 SCC 300 for interpretation. [Paras 8-14, 18-25]

Role of Standing Orders and Appointment Terms - Supreme Court emphasizes that nothing in Standing Orders can override the terms of a service contract - Confirms that transfers are permissible under the terms of appointment and confirmation orders despite modifications in Standing Orders. [Paras 12, 14, 17]

Decision – Appeals of M/s. Divgi Metal Wares Ltd. allowed – Judgments and orders of High Court in related writ petitions set aside – Supreme Court upholds the legality of employee transfers as per the terms of appointment. [Paras 24-27]