Constitutional Law – Validity of Legislation – Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 – Challenge to the repeal of Khalsa University established under the 2016 Act – Appellant argued the repeal act was discriminatory, arbitrary, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution – Respondent State of Punjab justified repeal, citing protection of the heritage character of Khalsa College – Held: The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 was discriminatory and arbitrary, lacking a reasonable classification – The Act failed to prove an intelligible differentia for singling out Khalsa University – Appeal allowed, the repeal Act struck down as unconstitutional – Khalsa University Act, 2016 restored [Paras 1, 24, 56-66].

Legislation – Single Entity Law – Discrimination – The Khalsa University was singled out for repeal while 16 other private universities established under the 2010 policy continued to operate – Appellants contended that there was no justification for the discriminatory treatment – Court found that the State had not provided material to support its classification and no compelling or emergent situation justified such an action – Held: Repeal Act violated Article 14 as it was discriminatory against the Khalsa University without reasonable basis [Paras 56-59].

Arbitrariness – Manifest Arbitrariness – Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 was enacted to protect the heritage status of Khalsa College, but the University had no direct impact on Khalsa College’s heritage – Appellants provided a specific undertaking to not affect Khalsa College – Court found the basis for the repeal Act was non-existent and thus manifestly arbitrary – Held: The repeal Act was enacted irrationally without adequate determining principle, rendering it unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 64-65].

Decision: The appeal is allowed – The impugned judgment of the High Court is quashed – The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 is struck down as unconstitutional – Khalsa University Act, 2016 restored – No costs imposed [Paras 66].

Criminal Law – Cheating and Forgery – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – The appellants, accused of cheating and forgery in a loan fraud involving forged mortgage documents submitted to a bank, sought to quash the proceedings after a settlement was reached – High Court dismissed the plea, citing that the offenses affected public interest, and could not be quashed due to a private settlement – Supreme Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the case was civil in nature with criminal facets and that a settlement had been reached, rendering further prosecution unjustified [Paras 1-39].

Loan Fraud – Role of Appellants – The appellants, wives of Accused Nos. 1 and 2, were involved only as co-guarantors in the loan and had no active role in the alleged forgery and conspiracy – The principal accused had settled the outstanding dues with the bank, closing the loan account – Continuation of criminal proceedings was held to be oppressive and futile given the settlement [Paras 5, 14, 36].

Private Settlement – Impact on Criminal Liability – Supreme Court noted that the offenses, although non-compoundable, predominantly bore a civil character arising from financial transactions – Following precedents, including Gian Singh and Nikhil Merchant, the Court held that private settlements in cases with civil overtones could lead to quashing of criminal charges when conviction seemed unlikely and continuation would be oppressive [Paras 17, 23, 29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings quashed – Appellants acquitted from all charges​.

Constitutional Law – Validity of Legislation – Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 – Challenge to the repeal of Khalsa University established under the 2016 Act – Appellant argued the repeal act was discriminatory, arbitrary, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution – Respondent State of Punjab justified repeal, citing protection of the heritage character of Khalsa College – Held: The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 was discriminatory and arbitrary, lacking a reasonable classification – The Act failed to prove an intelligible differentia for singling out Khalsa University – Appeal allowed, the repeal Act struck down as unconstitutional – Khalsa University Act, 2016 restored [Paras 1, 24, 56-66].

Legislation – Single Entity Law – Discrimination – The Khalsa University was singled out for repeal while 16 other private universities established under the 2010 policy continued to operate – Appellants contended that there was no justification for the discriminatory treatment – Court found that the State had not provided material to support its classification and no compelling or emergent situation justified such an action – Held: Repeal Act violated Article 14 as it was discriminatory against the Khalsa University without reasonable basis [Paras 56-59].

Arbitrariness – Manifest Arbitrariness – Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 was enacted to protect the heritage status of Khalsa College, but the University had no direct impact on Khalsa College’s heritage – Appellants provided a specific undertaking to not affect Khalsa College – Court found the basis for the repeal Act was non-existent and thus manifestly arbitrary – Held: The repeal Act was enacted irrationally without adequate determining principle, rendering it unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 64-65].

Decision: The appeal is allowed – The impugned judgment of the High Court is quashed – The Khalsa University (Repeal) Act, 2017 is struck down as unconstitutional – Khalsa University Act, 2016 restored – No costs imposed [Paras 66].

Quashment of Proceedings – Section 120B IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act – Lack of Evidence Against Appellant – The appellant was charged as Accused No. 13 in a case related to a quid pro quo transaction involving public officials and business entities – The High Court refused to quash the proceedings, holding that the contentions raised were matters for trial – Held: Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against the appellant, observing that there was no material evidence connecting the appellant with the alleged conspiracy, beyond his role as Managing Director in a company that transferred funds on behalf of other accused [Paras 1-3, 11-14].

Allegations of Misuse of Official Position and Quid Pro Quo Transactions – The appellant allegedly facilitated transfer of funds through his company, M/s Cornerstone Property Investments Pvt. Ltd., on behalf of Accused No. 3, which were ultimately received by a shell company owned by Accused No. 14 – Supreme Court found that the appellant had no personal involvement or benefit from the transactions and that his company was not implicated as an accused – Held: Allegations of facilitation through appellant's company did not suffice to implicate him personally in criminal conspiracy [Paras 4-6, 15].

Failure to Array Necessary Accused Parties – Absence of Direct Involvement of Appellant – The prosecution failed to array companies involved in the transaction as accused parties, including companies that routed funds ultimately reaching Accused No. 14 – Appellant argued that he could not be charged individually without his company being implicated – Supreme Court accepted this contention, noting the lack of material evidence showing appellant’s direct involvement in the alleged transactions – Held: Without implicating the primary entities involved in the transaction, it was improper to prosecute the appellant individually [Paras 7, 11].

No Material Linking Appellant to Conspiracy – Role of Primary Accused – The prosecution primarily accused Accused Nos. 1, 3, and 14 of conspiracy and corruption; however, no substantial evidence was presented to link the appellant with the core conspiracy – The Supreme Court ruled that continuation of proceedings would be a "travesty of justice" given the absence of material to implicate the appellant – Held: Appeal allowed, and proceedings against the appellant were quashed [Paras 12, 13, 16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Proceedings Quashed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court judgment and quashed the proceedings against the appellant alone – This decision does not impact the trial against other accused, which is allowed to proceed independently.

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Appeal Allowed – Appellants, senior employees of Hindustan Lever Ltd, were accused of abetting the suicide of their colleague, Rajeev Jain, by allegedly harassing and humiliating him due to his refusal to accept a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) – High Court dismissed their plea to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 306 of the IPC – Supreme Court evaluated the standards for abetment of suicide, referencing previous rulings on instigation under Section 107 IPC and found insufficient grounds to conclude that the appellants’ actions constituted abetment to suicide – Held: Proceedings against the appellants quashed as an abuse of process, allowing the appeal [Paras 1-26].

Evidence and Witness Testimony – Credibility and Relevance of Statements – High Court relied heavily on statements from colleagues of the deceased, Sudhir Kumar Ojha and Jayant Kumar Ghatak, who alleged that the appellants humiliated Jain in a meeting, pressuring him to accept a lower position – Supreme Court observed that mere allegations of workplace harassment without a direct intent to provoke suicide do not satisfy the legal criteria for abetment under Section 306 – Statements of the colleagues did not sufficiently establish that appellants’ conduct amounted to instigation or compelling pressure as required by law [Paras 10, 13-16, 22].

Legal Interpretation – Abetment Under Section 306 IPC – Necessary Mens Rea and Direct Instigation – Supreme Court reiterated that for an abetment charge to hold, there must be a clear intention to incite suicide, with direct or indirect incitement – Citing Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, Court emphasized that mere workplace dissatisfaction or frustration does not constitute abetment, requiring proof of an unequivocal act by the accused to create an unbearable situation for the victim – Court found no direct instigation or evidence of unbearable harassment compelling Jain to commit suicide [Paras 17-20, 23-24].

Decision – Appeal Allowed, Proceedings Quashed – Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in dismissing the appellants' plea for quashing proceedings – No prima facie case of abetment under Section 306 IPC was established, as the appellants’ actions did not meet the threshold of instigation – Held: High Court order set aside, and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 11428 of 2007 quashed – Appellants exonerated from charges under Section 306 IPC [Paras 25-26].

Civil Law – Redevelopment Scheme – Dispute Over Rent and Dues – Developer's Obligations – The respondents (tenants) approached the Bombay High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the developers (petitioners) to pay outstanding rent and complete the redevelopment of Chunawala Building as per a scheme sanctioned by the Maharashtra Government. The High Court issued interim directions, asking the petitioners to deposit ₹1.20 crores. The petitioners challenged this order, claiming that the amount due was only ₹1,77,236, not ₹1.20 crores [Paras 2-5].

Jurisdiction of MHADA – Competency to Resolve Disputed Facts – The Supreme Court held that the disputed facts concerning rent payment and the outstanding amount should be resolved by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), as it is the competent authority. The Court directed MHADA to take an appropriate decision within four weeks after hearing both parties [Paras 6-9].

Settlement Between Parties – Partial Resolution – The Court was informed that two of the private respondents had settled their disputes with the petitioners, leaving only 13 respondents in the case. The Court directed the petitioners to pay ₹1,77,236, which they admitted to owing, to the private respondents within two weeks [Para 10].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The Bombay High Court's proceedings in Writ Petition No. 126 of 2023 and the interim order were disposed of, with directions to MHADA to decide the outstanding amount due and ensure the redevelopment scheme is implemented as per the NOC.

Bail Application – Grant of Bail – Sections 377, 498A IPC and Sections 66E, 67A IT Act – Bail Granted - The appellant, who had been incarcerated for nearly one year, was involved in a case filed after a divorce petition, with allegations related to electronic files disputed by him. He sought bail pending trial on charges under Sections 377, 498A, 506, and 34 of the IPC and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act. Considering the period of incarceration, the court allowed the bail with conditions, including passport submission and a prohibition on contacting the informant/complainant. Violation of any conditions would result in bail cancellation [Paras 2-5].

Identity Protection – Suppression of Informant's Name – Granted - The identity of the informant/complainant, who is respondent No. 2, will be protected, and her name will be deleted from all court documents, with the original record kept in a sealed cover. The application for identity suppression was allowed [Paras 1, 6].

Appeal Outcome – Bail Granted - The appeal was allowed in terms of the signed order, and the appellant was released on bail pending the trial, with specific conditions related to contact restrictions, social media activity, and submission of travel documents [Para 8].

Conviction – Fresh Hearing by Successor Judge – Section 235 Cr.P.C. – The appellant contended that the new Presiding Officer was required to re-hear the case on the question of conviction after the transfer of the original judge – Supreme Court held: The successor judge is only required to hear the accused on the question of sentence under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C., not on conviction, as the judgment of conviction had already been finalized – The High Court's decision was upheld [Paras 6-16].

Transfer of Presiding Officer – No Rehearing on Conviction – Once the judgment of conviction is pronounced under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., the court becomes functus officio with respect to the conviction – The new Presiding Officer was correct in only hearing the appellant on the quantum of sentence, as per Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. – The appellant’s plea for a fresh hearing on conviction was rejected as misconceived [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – The new Presiding Officer is directed to hear the appellant on the question of sentence within one month from the date of this order – Appellant is directed to surrender before the Trial Court on 04/11/2024 for compliance [Paras 19-22].

Criminal Procedure – Successor Judge’s Role Post Conviction – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant sought a re-hearing of his case on the question of conviction by the successor judge after the original judge who convicted him was transferred – Held: Once a judgment of conviction is pronounced, the Trial Court becomes functus officio regarding conviction under Section 235(1) CrPC; only the hearing on the sentence remains under Section 235(2) CrPC, which the successor judge is authorized to conduct – The High Court rightly directed the successor judge to hear the appellant on sentencing alone – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-16].

Scope of Section 235 CrPC – Two Components of Judgment – Conviction Finalized; Separate Order on Sentence Required – Under Section 235 CrPC, a judgment of conviction involves two stages: (i) judgment on conviction, and (ii) separate hearing on sentence – Once conviction is pronounced, the judge’s role on conviction ends, but the convicted individual has the right to be heard on the quantum of sentence – This right can be exercised before a successor judge if the original judge is unavailable – High Court correctly upheld this procedural interpretation, allowing only sentencing to be heard by the new judge [Para 12].

Procedural Compliance under Sections 353 and 354 CrPC – Judgment Pronounced by Original Judge Valid – The appellant argued that the conviction judgment did not comply with Sections 353 and 354 CrPC as it was delivered by a judge who was later transferred – Held: The original judgment was pronounced in open court, in the presence of appellant’s counsel, fulfilling the requirements of Sections 353 and 354 CrPC – The judgment was therefore valid and binding, and the successor judge was not required to re-hear on conviction – High Court’s order upheld [Paras 17-18].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – The conviction judgment is upheld, and the successor judge is directed to proceed with the sentencing hearing as mandated under Section 235(2) CrPC. The appellant is ordered to appear before the Trial Court for sentencing.