Condonation of Delay & Grant of Leave – Special leave petition delayed by 2461 days; delay condoned due to lack of legal knowledge and assistance while in incarceration; leave granted to appeal High Court's judgment [Paras 1-4].

Challenged Judgment – High Court upheld trial court's life sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC dated back to 2001; Supreme Court examined potential reduction to Section 304 IPC [Paras 5, 8, 9].

Factual Background – Accused allegedly killed Dasmet Bai by striking her with stones during a sudden quarrel; reliance on medical evidence and eyewitness accounts to challenge the degree of criminal liability [Paras 6-7, 10-16].

Medical Evidence – Single fatal injury not conclusively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, challenging the intent required for Section 302 IPC [Paras 17-20].

Murder Charge Evaluation – Section 302 IPC – Appeal against High Court's affirmation of trial court conviction under Section 302 IPC for the death of Dasmet Bai. Reevaluation based on medical testimony and eyewitness accounts suggesting a sudden quarrel and a single fatal injury without premeditation. [Paras 5-18]

Modification of Conviction – Substantial reevaluation of the intent and circumstances of the injury leading to death, resulting in the reduction of the charge from Section 302 IPC (Murder) to Section 304 Part II IPC (Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder). Conviction altered due to lack of evidence for intention to cause death, aligned with the infliction of a single, impulsive injury during a quarrel. [Paras 19-22]

Decision – Modification of Conviction – Supreme Court modifies the conviction from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). Sentence reduced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, acknowledging the 17 years already served by the appellant. [Paras 21-23]

Decree Execution – Dispute over Execution of Compromise Agreement – Civil Appeal against the High Court’s decision allowing objections under Section 47 CPC, claiming the decree was inexecutable and void – The High Court set aside the executing court’s decision, allowing the objections, which stemmed from the alleged joint ownership of property and lack of participation by Defendant No. 2 in the compromise – Supreme Court reverses the High Court’s ruling, finding the compromise valid and the execution objections baseless – Restores Executing Court’s order. [Paras 2-15]

Property Ownership and Compromise Agreement Validity – Involvement of Defendant No. 1 and Plaintiff in a valid compromise to execute a sale deed, affirmed by past and present court findings – Dismissal of claims regarding Defendant No. 2’s ownership rights, as he acknowledged lack of ownership and was not a necessary party to the agreement – High Court’s errors in interpreting joint ownership and compromise agreement validity corrected. [Paras 9-12]

Finality of Court Decisions and Abuse of Legal Process – Legal challenges to compromise and execution repeatedly dismissed, including a Special Leave Petition – Current objections by Respondent No. 1, based on similar grounds previously dismissed, deemed an abuse of process of law – Reinforces principles of finality and legality in court decisions and agreements. [Paras 13-14]

Judgment – Supreme Court allows appeal, sets aside the High Court judgment, and restores the Executing Court’s order, rejecting objections under Section 47 CPC – Establishes that the compromise was legally sound and executable, upholding the original terms of the compromise agreement. [Para 15]

Consumer Law - Promotional Trailers – Legal Nature – Analysis – Supreme Court clarifies that promotional trailers, including those for movies, are unilateral communications and do not constitute offers or contracts enforceable by law. Promotional trailers designed to entice potential viewers do not create a contractual relationship or obligations akin to it. [Paras 1, 13-14]

Unfair Trade Practice – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Findings – Held that the facts do not support a finding of unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A promotional trailer lacking a specific component in the actual movie, such as a song, does not amount to a deceptive practice unless a promise to include it in the movie is explicitly made. [Paras 16, 18]

Consumer Protection – Entertainment Services – Application – Supreme Court finds no deficiency of service in the context of entertainment services where a song shown in a movie's promotional trailer was not included in the movie. The mere inclusion of a song in a trailer does not constitute a promise that it will be featured in the movie, nor does it form an implied contract with the viewers. [Paras 9, 10, 14]

Judicial Approach to Promotional Content – Court emphasizes that promotional content in artistic services, like movies, inherently involves artistic freedom and discretion, which should be considered when assessing claims of misleading or deceptive practices. [Paras 19-20]

Decision – The Supreme Court sets aside the lower courts' findings of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, vindicating the appellant film producer. Finds that no contractual obligation was formed based on the promotional trailer, and the trailer's content not appearing in the film does not constitute an unfair trade practice. [Paras 20-21]

Family Law - Transfer Petition - Divorce Petition Transfer - Section 25 CPC - Transfer petition by petitioner-wife seeking transfer of divorce petition from Muzaffarpur, Bihar to Ranchi, Jharkhand - Parties, trained commercial pilots, married on 07.07.2021 and registered under Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 - Subsequently, differences arose, and legal proceedings ensued - Held, transfer petition disposed in light of joint application under Article 142 for declaration of nullity of marriage. [Paras 1-10]

Marriage - Validity of Marriage - Section 7 Hindu Marriage Act - Ceremonies - Parties did not perform requisite Hindu marriage ceremonies including saptapadi - Marriage certificate issued without requisite ceremonies - Held, marriage not valid under Section 7 of the Act, certificates null and void. [Paras 11-20]

Article 142 - Joint Application - Declaration of Nullity - Parties filed joint application under Article 142 seeking declaration that their marriage is null and void - Supreme Court accepted joint application, declared marriage dated 07.07.2021 as not valid in law - Quashed associated legal proceedings including divorce, maintenance, and criminal cases. [Paras 21-35]

Decision - Declaration of Nullity of Marriage - Court declared the marriage dated 07.07.2021 between parties null and void due to non-performance of requisite ceremonies under Hindu Marriage Act - Quashed divorce petition, maintenance case, and FIR against respondent and his parents - Application under Article 142 allowed, transfer petition disposed of accordingly. [Paras 36-40]

Cancellation of Bail – Criminal Appeals against High Court orders granting bail – Assault and murder case involving accused Vivek Pal and Punit Pal – High Court granted bail which was challenged by the original complainant in Supreme Court – Supreme Court considers the severity of the crimes, the influence of the accused, and potential threat to the judicial process – Held, bail granted by the High Court set aside, accused to be taken into custody immediately. [Paras 1-22]

Seriousness of Offense – Analysis of criminal charges – Accused charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411, 302, and 120B IPC – Allegations of market closure and influence on local area following the crime – Supreme Court stresses the severity and impact of the crime committed in broad daylight, leading to the reversal of bail. [Paras 18-19]

Judicial Discretion in Bail – Application of judicial principles for bail – Supreme Court cites precedents on proper bail consideration – Highlights lack of appropriate discretion in bail granting by High Court given the serious nature of the allegations and evidence against the accused – Orders for cancellation of bail and immediate custody of the accused. [Paras 15-20]

Decision – Sets aside High Court's bail orders, citing improper exercise of judicial discretion in light of the accused's conduct and the gravity of the crime – Orders immediate custody of the accused and expeditious trial [Paras 19-21].

Applicability of Penalty Provision – Appeal by Pernod Ricard challenging the application of an outdated penalty provision after its amendment in 2011 – The case focuses on whether to apply the rule extant at the time of violation (2009-10) or the rule effective when penalty proceedings were initiated in 2011 [Paras 1-2.1, 11].

Penalty for Excess Loss of Liquor – Interpretation of Substituted Rule – Civil Appeal on excise penalties – Appellant contends for the application of substituted Rule 19 of Madhya Pradesh Foreign Liquor Rules, 1996, which imposes a lower penalty for losses during transit exceeding permissible limits, against the old rule that imposed a higher penalty. The Supreme Court holds that the substituted rule applies retrospectively to pending proceedings, overruling the High Court’s decision to apply the old rule for the license period of 2009-10 during which the violation occurred. [Paras 1-35]

Legislative Interpretation of Substitution vs. Supersession – The Court distinguishes between substitution and supersession, asserting that substitution involves a repeal of the old provision and introduction of a new one. The Supreme Court emphasizes that such substitution should have retrospective application unless expressly stated otherwise, guiding the implementation of penalties under the newer, more lenient provisions of Rule 19, as substituted. [Paras 11-12, 12.1-12.2]

Retrospective Application of Penal Provisions – The Court finds that applying the amended Rule 19 to incidents occurring before its enactment does not impart retrospective effect since the demand for penalty was raised post-amendment. This aligns with the principle of not imposing a heavier penalty than what was applicable at the time the offence was committed, following the proper balance between crime and punishment. [Para 33]

Decision – Substitution of Rule 19 Favors Appellant – The Supreme Court allows the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the High Court, and holds that penalties for excess losses of liquor for the license period of 2009-2010 should be assessed as per the substituted Rule 19 effective from March 29, 2011, thus applying a reduced penalty rate. [Para 35]

Quashing of FIR – Criminal Appeal against High Court order dismissing petition to quash FIR lodged for offenses under Sections 498A, 406, 384, 420, and 120(B) IPC – Appeal brought following an acquittal in a related case and amidst allegations of consecutive FIRs on identical grounds in different states – Supreme Court finds High Court misinterpreted the chronological order of complaints, quashes FIR and proceedings due to misuse of legal process and procedural errors. [Paras 1-12]

Chronology of Complaints – Error in High Court’s Findings – Detailed examination of the dates of complaints and FIRs filed in Hisar and Udaipur – Supreme Court corrects the factual inaccuracies concerning the sequence of complaints presented by the High Court, noting the High Court’s oversight in misjudging the prior complaint as being filed in Udaipur instead of Hisar. [Paras 3, 8]

Misuse of Official Position and Judicial Process – Respondent's repeated misuse of legal procedures examined – Respondent No.3, a police officer, and her father filed multiple complaints in different jurisdictions on the same allegations to harass the appellant – Supreme Court criticizes this conduct as an abuse of process and a waste of judicial resources, leading to the imposition of costs on the respondents. [Paras 7, 11-12]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet against Appellant – Supreme Court quashes FIR No. 156 of 2015 and related proceedings, citing the High Court’s errors and the respondents' misuse of the judicial process. Costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- imposed on the respondents to be shared between the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and the appellant. [Para 12]

Bail Granted by High Court – Review by Supreme Court – Criminal Appeal against the order of Allahabad High Court granting bail to accused persons convicted under multiple sections including 302/149 IPC – High Court granted bail based on period of incarceration and previous bails granted to co-accused – Supreme Court examines subsequent criminal activities and the involvement of accused in other serious offenses. [Paras 1-3]

Circumstances of the Case – Detailed narrative of events leading to the convictions under 302/149 IPC for life – Accused involved in a fatal shooting incident and subsequent killing of a Police Constable during judicial custody – Escape and re-arrest by Special Task Force – Detailed analysis of the involvement of each accused in additional crimes beyond the original case. [Paras 4-7]

Assessment of Parity in Bail Conditions – High Court’s rationale for bail based on parity and length of incarceration challenged – Supreme Court finds fault with the non-disclosure of pertinent facts during the bail hearing, specifically the serious offenses committed by the accused post the initial crime. [Paras 8-11]

Re-evaluation of Bail for Multiple Accused – Supreme Court distinguishes roles of co-accused in subsequent serious offenses – Bail for Arvind Kumar upheld due to absence of involvement in the murder of Police Constable Ajay Kumar – Bail for Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar revoked due to direct involvement in further serious crimes. [Paras 12-13]

Decision – Grant of bail to Rishi Kumar and Chandra Kumar set aside due to their dangerous conduct post initial incarceration and ongoing risks posed – Supreme Court orders their return to custody – Appeal against Arvind Kumar’s bail dismissed, bail upheld. [Paras 14]

Jurisdiction of Special Courts – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) – Legislative intent – Held – Offences under the IBC should be tried by Special Courts established under Chapter XXVIII of the Companies Act, despite subsequent amendments to the Companies Act not affecting this provision. It is a case of legislation by incorporation, not legislation by reference. The Special Court at the time of the Code's enactment included Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges, not affected by later amendments. [Para 43-44]

Legislative Interpretation – Interpretation of Section 236 of the IBC and Section 435 of the Companies Act regarding jurisdiction of offences – High Court's error in interpreting jurisdiction based on amendments to Companies Act corrected – Held – Special Courts as defined at the enactment of the IBC retain jurisdiction for IBC offences, not affected by later legislative changes. [Para 25, 44-45]

Direction to High Court – Matter remanded to High Court – In view of jurisdiction being appropriately placed with Special Courts, High Court to re-assess the petition on merits – Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. [Para 48]

Direction on Remand – Case remanded back to High Court for consideration on merits, as the merits of the respondents' writ petition were not addressed in the quashing order [Para 48].