Default Bail and Chargesheet Filing – Supreme Court considered whether respondents were entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., when a chargesheet was filed within the prescribed time limit, but investigation against some accused was ongoing – Held that default bail was not applicable once chargesheet filed and cognizance taken, even if further investigation pending. [Paras 13, 15, 23-25]

Nature of Chargesheet – Filing a chargesheet with ongoing investigation against other accused does not render it incomplete – The court examines the nature of offences and takes cognizance based on the material presented, irrespective of further investigation status. [Paras 20, 22, 24]

Legal Principles on Bail and Cognizance – Supreme Court elucidated principles governing default bail, relation between filing of chargesheet, ongoing investigations, and the court's power to take cognizance – Emphasized that filing of chargesheet within prescribed time extinguishes right to default bail. [Paras 15, 17-19, 23, 24, 26]

Decision – Supreme Court set aside High Court and Special Court orders granting default bail – Directed respondents to be taken into custody, clarifying that observations in this judgment shall not influence pending proceedings on merits. [Para 26]

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Dissolution of Marriage Granted – The Supreme Court granted a decree of divorce based on the irretrievable breakdown of marriage between Prakashchandra Joshi (appellant) and Kuntal Prakashchandra Joshi @ Kuntal Visanji Shah (respondent). The parties had been living separately since February 2011, with no contact for almost 13 years, and the respondent-wife did not respond to court summons, indicating no interest in continuing the marital relationship. The marriage, solemnized on 05.01.2004, was dissolved under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India. [Paras 13, 15-16]

Non-appearance of Respondent – Impact on Judicial Proceedings – The respondent failed to appear in various judicial proceedings, including the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights initiated by the appellant and the present divorce proceedings, despite due service. This non-appearance was considered indicative of her disinterest in continuing the marriage. [Paras 12, 16]

Exercise of Power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution – The Court exercised its power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to do ‘complete justice’ in the case, finding that the marriage had irretrievably broken down and there was no possibility of the couple staying together. [Paras 13, 15-16]

Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Initial Plea by Appellant – Initially, the appellant filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. However, both the Family Court and the High Court dismissed the appellant's petition, finding no case made out for divorce on these grounds. The Supreme Court did not focus on these grounds but rather on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. [Paras 4-6, 16]

Long Separation – Indicative of Irretrievable Breakdown – The fact that the parties had been separated for approximately 13 years with no communication was a significant factor in determining the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. [Para 15]

Decision – The appeal was allowed, and the marriage was dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. [Para 16]

Criminal Appeal – Murder – Acquittal – Circumstantial Evidence – Appeal against conviction and life sentence for murder and conspiracy to destroy evidence. The Supreme Court scrutinized the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the Trial Court and the High Court. The main evidence included recovery of items at the appellant’s instance and blood-stained clothes. The Supreme Court found the circumstantial evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction. [Para 1, 11-20]

Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence and its Evaluation – The Court reiterated the principles for basing conviction on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the necessity for circumstances to be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, and excluding all other hypotheses. The recovered items, including a dagger and rickshaw, were not conclusively linked to the appellant or the crime. The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence. [Para 7, 14-19]

Murder – Absence of Direct Evidence – In cases lacking direct evidence, reliance on circumstantial evidence necessitates a higher degree of proof. The prosecution’s reliance on suspicious circumstances and recovery of items failed to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. – FSL report insufficient to prove guilt – Contradictions in recovery of murder weapon and other articles weaken prosecution’s case – Discrepancies in evidence regarding the identification of the deceased’s body - The Court highlighted the distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. [Para 9, 12-19]

Inadequate Explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Appellant’s failure to provide explanation in Section 313 statement not a conclusive factor in circumstantial evidence cases – Such non-explanation cannot be used as an additional link in the chain of circumstances [Paras 21].

Decision – Overturning High Court Judgment – The Supreme Court found the High Court and Trial Court’s reliance on circumstantial evidence and recovery of items inadequate for conviction. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and life sentence were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released, overturning the High Court’s judgment. [Para 20-22]

Goa’s Criteria for Identifying Private Forests – Validity Upheld – Supreme Court rejects the challenge to Goa’s criteria for identifying private forests – Minimum area of 5 hectares and canopy density of 0.4 deemed appropriate, rejecting the proposed reduction to 1 hectare and 0.1 canopy density – Criteria set in line with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 – Nationwide uniform criteria for forest identification not feasible due to diverse geographic conditions across states [Paras 1-70].

Environmental Law – Identification of Forests – Criteria for Identification of Forests in Private Properties in Goa – Challenged in Supreme Court – Appeal against National Green Tribunal Order – Upheld existing criteria for identification of forests in private properties – No modification of criteria required. [Para 1-5, 55-70]

Forest Conservation Act, 1980 – Application to Private Forests – Criteria for identifying 'forest' in private properties – Supreme Court upholds criteria set by State of Goa – Minimum area of 5 hectares and canopy density of 0.4 retained – No change to 1 hectare area and 0.1 canopy density as proposed by appellant. [Para 4, 59-67]

Jurisdiction – National Green Tribunal – Jurisdiction to alter forest identification criteria – Supreme Court finds NGT correctly declined to alter criteria set by State – Upholds NGT's decision in light of Supreme Court's earlier directions and established criteria. [Para 30, 55, 70]

Res Judicata – Challenge to Forest Identification Criteria – Criteria for identification of forests in private lands attaining finality in previous judgments – Appellant's challenge barred by principles of res judicata – Supreme Court holds no further reconsideration necessary. [Para 38-42, 70]

Conservation – Private Forests – Conservation measures in State of Goa – Court highlights significant forest cover in Goa – Criteria for identifying forests crucial for conservation and protection – Supreme Court upholds existing criteria to ensure effective conservation. [Para 67, 70]

Sustainable Development – Balance between Environmental Protection and Development – Criteria for identification of forests seeks to balance environmental protection and developmental needs – Supreme Court recognizes importance of sustainable development in upholding criteria. [Para 67, 70]

Decision – Supreme Court's Decision – Criteria for identification of forests in private properties upheld – Existing criteria set by State of Goa retained – Appeals rejected, and interim order vacated. [Para 70]

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – Dismissal of Criminal Revision Petition by High Court Challenged – Appellants seeking discharge from FIR No. 141/2010 under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC – Allegations of forging signatures on minor child’s passport application – FIR and proceedings against Appellants quashed. [Para 2, 39]

Marital Dispute and Criminal Proceedings – Interplay – Allegations rooted in marital discord – Assessment of circumstances indicating retaliatory nature of FIR against Appellants – Importance of distinguishing matrimonial disputes from criminal allegations. [Para 31, 32, 37]

Forgery and Cheating – Evaluation of Allegations – Analysis of offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC in context of passport application – Absence of prima facie evidence of ‘deceit’ or ‘dishonest intent’ – No loss or damage to Respondent leading to conclusion that essential elements of ‘cheating’ and ‘forgery’ not established. [Para 16, 17, 22, 23, 24]

Passport Act, 1967 – Section 12(b) – Applicability in Context – Consideration of allegations of furnishing false information for obtaining passport – State FSL report inconclusive – No prima facie case under Section 12(b) established. [Para 35, 36]

Judicial Assessment and Discretion – Trial Magistrate and High Court’s Approach – Critique of procedural irregularities and failure to recognise underlying marital dispute – Need for judicial prudence in distinguishing between matrimonial issues and criminal conduct. [Para 28, 29, 33]

Fundamental Rights and Child’s Best Interest – Right to Travel Abroad – Consideration of minor child’s interests in backdrop of parental dispute – Respondent No. 2’s conduct affecting child’s fundamental rights highlighted. [Para 38]

Costs – Imposition on Respondent No. 2 – Respondent No. 2 directed to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to Appellant No. 1 for causing undue hardship through initiation of criminal proceedings. [Para 40]

Decision – High Court and Trial Magistrate’s judgments set aside – FIR No. 141/2010 against Appellants quashed – Emphasis on preventing misuse of criminal proceedings in the context of personal disputes. [Para 39]

Dispute Resolution in Charitable Society Elections – Challenge against election process of Shikshan Prasarak Mandal's executive body – Appellants’ Change Report rejected due to alleged procedural flaws – Assistant Charity Commissioner, Joint Charity Commissioner, District Judge, and High Court involved in adjudication. [Paras 1-8, 31]

Doctrine of Necessity – Utilization in Electing Society's Executive Body – Appellant No. 1, functioning as Working President, convened an extraordinary meeting for elections due to absence of regular office bearers – Doctrine of necessity justified action under compelling circumstances, drawing parallel with William Blackstone's principles in "Commentaries on the Laws of England" and similar jurisprudence. [Paras 14-18, 20]

Membership and Notice in Societal Elections – Disputed status of 7 objectors as members due to non-payment of dues – Proviso to Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act rendered them ineligible to vote or be counted as members – Non-issuance of election meeting notice to them not found to be illegal. [Paras 22-23, 26]

Eligibility of Contesting Respondents – Respondents’ locus challenged due to their non-member/non-objector status – Appeal allowed in favor of appellants, with a directive for fresh elections to be conducted by the Charity Commissioner. [Paras 28-35]

Future Conduct of Elections – Supreme Court’s direction for fresh elections by Charity Commissioner, ensuring fair, transparent, and legal processes – Emphasis on resolving membership issues and electoral eligibility. [Para 35]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders rejecting Change Report set aside – Fresh elections to be held for the Society's Executive Committee within six months, under supervision of the Charity Commissioner. [Paras 31, 35-36]

Income Tax Reassessment - Validity of Proceedings - Assessee's Failure to File Regular Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account for Assessment Years 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93 - Discrepancy in Capital and Current Accounts - Assessee's Justification for Non-filing Based on Department's Seizure of Documents - Assessment Officer's Relying on Balance Sheet Submitted for Loan to South Indian Bank - Tribunal's Order Setting Aside Reassessment Validated - High Court's Reversal Erroneous - Supreme Court Restores Tribunal's Order - Original Assessments Under Section 143(3) Not Based on False Declaration by Assessee - Reassessment Concluded as Mere Change of Opinion by Assessing Officer, Not Legally Permissible - No Valid Ground for Reassessment under Section 147 - Appeals Allowed [Paras 32-45].

Reassessment of Income – Validity and Limitations: Challenge against the High Court’s order reversing the Tribunal's decision on the reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Reassessment based on a comparison of the assessee's balance sheets – Issue of whether the reassessment was based on mere change of opinion or on tangible new evidence. [Para 1, 37-45]

Material Disclosure by Assessee – Obligation and Scope: Examination of the assessee's duty to disclose fully and truly all primary and relevant facts necessary for assessment – Evaluation of whether the assessee's disclosure met legal requirements in the absence of regular books of account due to seizure by the department. [Para 41, 43-44]

Validity of Returns in Absence of Regular Books of Account: Discussion on the validity of returns filed without regular books of account – Assessing officer's discretion in treating returns as defective and the impact of non-exercise of this discretion on the validity of the returns. [Para 43]

Assessing Officer's Jurisdiction for Reassessment: Exploration of the circumstances under which an assessing officer can reassess income – Analysis of whether the officer’s belief of income escape was based on specific, reliable information or was a result of change in opinion. [Para 38, 42]

Decision: High Court’s order setting aside the Tribunal's decision is reversed – Tribunal's findings that reassessment for the contested years was not justified are restored, thereby allowing the appeals of the assessee and its partners. [Para 45-46]

Constitutional Law – Electoral Process – Appointment of Election Commissioners – The Supreme Court considered the constitutional validity of the process of appointment of Election Commissioners under Section 7(1) of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Act, 2023, as challenged in multiple writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. [Para 1-2]

Challenge to the Appointment Process – raised – concerns over the substitution of the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister in the Selection Committee for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, arguing it impacts the transparency and fairness of elections, a foundational element of democracy. Also questioned were procedural irregularities in the selection process, including the inadequate provision of candidate information to the Selection Committee members. [Para 2-3, 6-7]

Response from Union of India – provided – justification for the 2023 Act, outlining the formation and actions of the Selection and Search Committees as per the Act. Emphasized the preponement of the selection meeting, the constitution of the committees, and the resignation of an Election Commissioner. [Para 4-8]

Judicial Restraint in Granting Interim Orders – emphasized – the Court's cautious approach in matters involving the constitutionality of legislations, upholding the principle that unless a provision is ex facie unconstitutional, interim orders should not be granted to suspend statutory provisions. [Para 10]

Rejection of Interim Order for Re-selection – decided – the Court refused to direct a fresh selection process with the Chief Justice of India as a member of the Selection Committee, stating that it would be inappropriate without declaring Section 7(1) unconstitutional and would amount to the Court enacting new law. [Para 11]

Impact on Forthcoming Elections – considered – The Court declined to intervene with the appointments of the Election Commissioners, citing the potential for causing confusion and constitutional breakdown ahead of the scheduled 18th General Elections for the Lok Sabha. [Para 12-13]

Procedural Concerns in Selection – noted – While expressing concern over the selection procedure's shortcomings, the Court refrained from issuing any directive or interim order, emphasizing the importance of proper deliberation and the examination of candidates' backgrounds in such selections. [Para 14]

Constitutional Functioning of Appointees – reminded – The Court highlighted the expectation that constitutional post holders, once selected, will adhere to constitutional roles and propriety, referencing Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's views on the functioning of a constitution irrespective of its quality. [Para 15]

Conclusion – Applications for Stay Dismissed – The Supreme Court, upon consideration, dismissed the applications for stay and other related applications, maintaining that its observations in this order are tentative and not final, as the matter is sub-judice. [Para 16-19]

Dispute on Partition and Legal Heir Status – Involving agricultural land in Tamil Nadu – Original suit filed for partition and possession by Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 against Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 – Appellants, later impleaded, claimed shares as legal heirs of Muthusamy Gounder, the common ancestor – Issue centered on the validity of marriages and legitimacy of children from extended family [Paras 2-6].

Trial Court and High Court Findings – Both courts dismissed the suit based on non-establishment of valid marriages of Muthusamy Gounder with Appellant No. 2 and Respondent No. 2 – Denied coparcenary status to extended family members due to lack of evidence on the factum of marriage [Paras 8-9].

Supreme Court Analysis – Focused on the entitlement of appellants to a share in the property as children of Muthusamy Gounder – Considered Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for admissions and declarations in documented evidence [Paras 12-15].

Admission in Documented Evidence – Muthusamy Gounder's acknowledgment of appellants and respondent No. 1 as his sons in a mortgage deed (Ex. B-6) and other documents treated as valid admissions, binding on the parties [Para 15].

Application of Legal Principles – Relied on the principles of legitimacy and rights to parental property under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Children from void or voidable marriages entitled to a share in the notional partitioned property of Muthusamy Gounder [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Preliminary decree of partition passed, dividing the property firstly between Respondent No. 3 and Muthusamy Gounder, and then among Muthusamy Gounder's children, including Appellant Nos. 1 and 3, and Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 – Appeal allowed [Para 18-19].