Criminal Law – Limitation - Delay in Filing Appeal – Right to Appeal under Article 21 – Fundamental Right – High Court erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without proper examination of reasons provided by the appellant – Appellant cited lack of monetary resources and livelihood challenges as causes for delay – Held: Delay of 1637 days condoned; appeal restored [Paras 4-7].

Right to Appeal – Expansive Scope under Article 21 – An appeal against conviction is a statutory and fundamental right affecting liberty – Condonation of delay warranted in cases where the appellant provides reasons, even if imperfect – High Court’s dismissal based on technical grounds erroneous [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Impugned order set aside – Criminal Appeal No. 1001/2021 restored for disposal on merits – Directions issued to High Court for expeditious adjudication [Para 8].

Criminal Law - Proclamation of Offender – Section 82 CrPC – Scope and Termination – A proclamation issued under Section 82 CrPC ceases to be effective if the accused no longer requires appearance in court, such as in cases of acquittal in the primary offence – Held: Once the purpose of proclamation is achieved or rendered irrelevant, the status of proclaimed offender must be nullified [Paras 6.1-6.3, 11].

Independent Offence under Section 174A IPC – Penal Consequences of Non-Appearance – Section 174A IPC creates a standalone offence for non-compliance with a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC – Held: Proceedings under Section 174A IPC can continue even if the proclamation itself is extinguished, but these can be closed if the primary offence is resolved [Paras 7-7.3, 8].

High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Misuse Corrected – High Court erroneously refused to quash proceedings despite acquittal of the appellant in the main offence and full settlement of monetary disputes – Held: Proceedings under Section 174A IPC and the appellant’s status as a proclaimed offender are no longer sustainable [Paras 9, 11].

Decision – Appeal allowed. The High Court’s order dated 2nd June 2023 is quashed, all proceedings under Section 174A IPC are closed, and the appellant’s status as a proclaimed offender is revoked [Para 11].
 

Quashing of FIR – Lack of Evidence – Allegation under Sections 354 and 506 IPC – FIR Quashed – Allegations against the appellant included physical and verbal harassment and threats, yet the investigation and statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC failed to substantiate any direct evidence or intent – Held: The allegations, being vague and unsupported by material evidence, fail to meet the threshold for prosecution. High Court's refusal to quash the FIR set aside. Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 12.3, 13.3, 17].

Definition of Modesty – Section 354 IPC – Application of Legal Standard to Facts – Modesty under Section 354 IPC entails actions capable of shocking a woman’s sense of decency – Held: Prima facie, the allegations do not establish the use of criminal force or intent to outrage modesty. The complainant's statements do not disclose any evidence sufficient to proceed under Section 354 IPC [Paras 12-12.4].

Mens Rea in Criminal Intimidation – Section 506 IPC – Absence of Threat or Alarm – For Section 506 IPC to apply, threats must be accompanied by an intent to cause alarm – Held: Statements against the appellant fail to demonstrate such intent. Lack of material evidence precludes the establishment of mens rea for criminal intimidation [Paras 13-13.3].

Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Quashing Proceedings – Principles Reiterated – High Courts may quash criminal proceedings where the allegations fail to disclose a prima facie case or where proceedings are an abuse of the process of law – Held: FIR and investigation reports lack substance to proceed against the appellant, warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 16-16.3].

Decision – The appeal is allowed. FIR No. 1074 of 2019 and all proceedings against the appellant are quashed. Observations are confined to the appellant, and the case against co-accused (R.K. Aneja) remains unaffected [Paras 17-18].
 

Civil - Tariff-based bids - Scope of Section 63, Electricity Act – Applicability to Local Authorities – Expanded Interpretation Adopted – APTEL ruled that Section 63 could only be invoked by distribution licensees or generating companies – Held: Section 63 is not restricted to licensees or generating companies; local authorities implementing waste-to-energy projects under statutory obligations may also invoke its provisions. The interpretation by APTEL imposed unwarranted limitations and was set aside [Paras 27, 30-31, 56].

Harmonious Construction of Section 63 and Section 86(1)(b), Electricity Act – Regulatory Oversight Affirmed – DERC’s powers to regulate electricity procurement under Section 86(1)(b) include adopting tariffs determined under Section 63 – Held: The powers under these sections must be read in harmony to achieve statutory objectives. Restricting Section 63's application to specific entities undermines the broader regulatory role of State Commissions [Paras 41-43, 56].

Mandate under Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 – Local Authorities' Role in WTE Projects – Recognized – Municipal authorities are mandated to establish WTE projects for effective waste management under Rule 15 of SWM Rules – Held: MCD's actions complied with its statutory duty and were in public interest, emphasizing the role of local authorities in renewable energy initiatives [Paras 47-49].

Public Interest and Environmental Goals – Priority in WTE Projects – The WTE project addressed environmental and public health concerns in Delhi through renewable energy generation – Held: APTEL failed to appreciate the larger public interest served by the project, justifying regulatory approval [Paras 54-56].

Decision – Appeals allowed. APTEL’s judgment dated 31/08/2023 is quashed, and DERC’s orders dated 06/03/2023 and 07/03/2023 are affirmed [Paras 57-59].
 

Definition of Shamlat Deh – Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 – Amendment Analysis – Land classified as Shamlat Deh excludes certain lands under specific conditions, such as allotment on quasi-permanent basis to displaced persons or transfer by sale or any other manner before 09/07/1985 – Held: Leasehold rights do not qualify as "allotment" or "transfer," and lessees cannot claim statutory protection under the amended Act [Paras 4, 10-12].

Lease vs Allotment – Legal Distinction – Interpretation of Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act – Lease is a temporary grant for specified use and duration, distinct from allotment or transfer of ownership rights – Held: The petitioner’s claim based on leasehold possession cannot override the ownership rights of Gram Panchayat [Paras 8-9, 44].

Eviction Proceedings – Unauthorized Occupation – Section 7 of the Act – Unauthorized occupation of Shamlat Deh land post-expiry of lease term leads to eviction – Held: Authorities and High Court correctly ordered eviction of the petitioner for unauthorized occupation following lease expiry [Paras 14, 17].

Long-Drawn Litigations – Absence of Prejudice from Procedural Irregularities – Non-framing of issues does not vitiate proceedings if parties understood the dispute and led evidence – Held: Lack of issues framing did not prejudice the petitioner; eviction upheld [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Special Leave Petition dismissed. The petitioner’s claim for protection under the amended Act is untenable. The land remains vested in the Gram Panchayat, and eviction was appropriately ordered [Paras 14, 17, 45-46].
 

Civil – MACT - Accident Claim - Reliance on Police Records – FIR and Chargesheet – Validity in Accident Claims – Tribunal and High Court relied on police records, including FIR and final report, to establish negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle – Held: Use of police records for determining negligence in motor accident claims is permissible, provided they support the claim on the preponderance of probabilities.

Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities in Motor Accident Claims – Strict proof of negligence is not required; the standard is preponderance of probabilities – Held: Tribunal correctly applied this standard based on evidence, including police reports and eyewitness accounts.

Allegations of Connivance and Fraudulent Chargesheet – Unsupported by Evidence – Appellant's contention of connivance between claimants and police in preparing a fraudulent chargesheet was unsupported by evidence – Held: Such unsubstantiated allegations cannot undermine the Tribunal’s findings.

Concurrent Findings by Tribunal and High Court – Scope of Interference – Findings of fact based on evidence were upheld by both the Tribunal and High Court – Held: No perversity in findings; Supreme Court declines to interfere.

Decision – Appeal dismissed. Findings of the Tribunal and High Court affirmed, holding the insurer liable for compensation awarded to the claimants.
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of Cheating, Fraud, and Criminal Conspiracy – FIR Filed Against the Appellant, a Foreign National, and Project Manager of Hyundai Engineering & Construction India LLP – Alleged Non-Payment of Rs. 9 Crores by Subcontractor Entity (YSSS) – Appellant Alleged to Have Connived in Default of Payment – High Court Refused to Quash FIR but Granted Protection from Arrest – Held: High Court Erred in Refusing to Quash FIR as No Specific Allegations or Prima Facie Offence Made Out Against Appellant – FIR Quashed [Paras 1-14].
Quashing Power – Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of Constitution – Legal Principles – Supreme Court Reiterates Guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – FIR Can Be Quashed Where Allegations Do Not Prima Facie Constitute an Offence, Are Absurd, or Are Manifestly Malicious – Cites Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Other Precedents on Abuse of Process of Law [Paras 6-9].
Absence of Specific Allegations – FIR Against Appellant Lacked Specific Accusations of Criminal Acts or Direct Role in Alleged Fraud – Allegations Were Primarily Against Subcontractor Entities – Held: Vague Allegations and Lack of Material Evidence Do Not Justify Continuation of Criminal Proceedings – FIR Amounts to Abuse of Process of Law [Paras 10-13].
Decision – Appeal allowed – FIR No. 64/2020 and all proceedings arising therefrom against the appellant quashed – High Court's judgment set aside [Para 13-14].
 

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption Act – Quashing of FIRs – FIRs registered against Central Government employees for alleged offenses under Section 7 of the PC Act – FIRs and chargesheets were quashed by the High Court for lack of State consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act and absence of notification designating the CBI Court as a Special Court under the PC Act – Held: High Court erred in holding that lack of State consent vitiated the proceedings – General consent granted by undivided Andhra Pradesh continued to apply post-bifurcation unless repealed – Notification designating the CBI Court as a Special Court remained valid in the absence of repeal or modification – Appeals allowed – FIRs and proceedings restored [Paras 1, 12-15, 19-23, 29-30].

Jurisdiction – Bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh – Consent Under DSPE Act – CBI registered FIRs for offenses occurring within Andhra Pradesh but investigated by Hyderabad branch – Contention of invalidity due to lack of separate consent from Andhra Pradesh rejected – Circular Memo of 26.05.2014 clarified that pre-bifurcation laws, including general consent, continued to operate in both States post-bifurcation – No legal vacuum existed – Held: Investigations and proceedings by CBI were valid [Paras 16-18, 23-27].

Special Court Designation – Notification Validity – G.O.M.S. No. 88 dated 07.08.2012 designated CBI Court at Hyderabad as Special Court for Rayalaseema districts in Andhra Pradesh under the PC Act – Court designation continued to be valid post-bifurcation due to Circular Memo and absence of repeal – Held: CBI Court at Hyderabad had jurisdiction to entertain cases until properly transferred [Paras 19-22].

CBI Investigation – Applicability to Central Government Employees – Offenses alleged against Central Government employees under a Central Act (PC Act) – Held: Consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act not required to investigate Central Government employees for offenses under Central Acts, irrespective of location – Followed precedents in Kanwal Tanuj v. State of Bihar and Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. [Paras 25-28].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court’s quashment of FIRs and proceedings under the PC Act set aside – Cases restored to the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool – Trial to proceed as per law [Paras 29-30].
 

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Genuineness of Will – Appellants (Defendants 1 to 3) challenged the decrees passed by the Trial Court and the High Court affirming 5/7th share in properties to the plaintiffs (Respondents 1 to 5) – Plaintiffs claimed partition and denial of Will’s validity – Defendants relied on an unregistered Will dated 06.04.1990 in their favor – Trial Court and High Court found the Will invalid due to suspicious circumstances and upheld plaintiffs’ claim – Held: Plaintiffs entitled to 5/7th share, and illegitimate sons entitled to 1/7th share each – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 4, 10, 11, 31].

Legitimacy – Rights of Children from Second Wife – Properties were self-acquired assets of the deceased testator allotted through a partition deed – Legitimacy of the second wife and her children irrelevant for inheritance – Held: Second wife’s children entitled to their share (1/7th each), along with plaintiffs’ 5/7th share [Paras 16-18].

Will – Proof and Suspicious Circumstances – Defendants failed to establish execution of the unregistered Will – Active involvement of the first defendant in procuring stamp papers, contradictory recitals regarding testator’s health, and non-examination of critical witnesses created suspicion – Non-matching signatures of the testator in the partition deed and Will – Courts rightly held the Will invalid [Paras 15(i)-(vii), 17, 25-27, 30].

Suspicious Circumstances Identified:

Active role of the first defendant (a beneficiary) in procuring the stamp papers, contrary to her claim of non-involvement [Para 15(i)].
Contradictions regarding the testator's health – Will indicated sound health but evidence suggested severe illness [Para 15(ii), 17].
Testator's signatures on the Will and the partition deed were non-matching [Para 15(iii)].
Absence of testimony from the scribe and the typist of the Will [Para 15(iv)].
Incongruities about the place of execution (Madurai) and procurement of stamp papers (Tenkasi) [Para 15(vi), 29].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings on the invalidity of the Will upheld – Plaintiffs awarded 5/7th share, and defendants (children of the second wife) 1/7th share each – No order as to costs [Paras 31-32].