Criminal Procedure Code – Section 482 – Quashing of Proceedings – Supreme Court observed that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction – The Court emphasized the distinction between a civil dispute and a criminal offense – The High Court erred in dismissing the petition for quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings – The appeal was allowed, and the proceedings were quashed [Paras 1-48].

Penal Code – Sections 406, 419, 420 – Ingredients of Offense – The complaint alleged that the appellant sold flats beyond their share, which was a matter of civil dispute – No fraudulent or dishonest intention was evident at the inception of the transaction – The facts did not disclose the commission of any offense under Sections 406, 419, or 420 IPC – Criminal proceedings should not be used as an instrument of harassment in civil disputes [Paras 27-38].

Judicial Precedents – Abuse of Process – The Court referred to various precedents where it was held that criminal proceedings must not be used to settle civil disputes – Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice – The present case was found to fall within the categories warranting quashing of proceedings as laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] [Paras 39-47].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned order of the High Court set aside – FIR No. 185/2016 dated 29.03.2016 and proceedings in C.C. No. 20609 of 2017 on the file of VI Additional CMM Bengaluru quashed [Paras 48-49].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – Discretionary Relief – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in denying specific performance on the grounds that it is a discretionary relief – Execution of agreement to sell, part sale consideration payment, and plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract were established – Denying specific performance would encourage dishonesty – High Court’s interpretation of Section 20 is incorrect and unsustainable [Paras 10-10.1, 12].

Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act – Readiness and Willingness – The plaintiff made necessary averments in the plaint and proved readiness and willingness to perform the contract – High Court's conclusion on non-compliance with Section 16(c) is contrary to record and law – The conduct of the plaintiff and subsequent actions were in line with the contract terms [Paras 6-6.1, 7].

Discretion under Section 20 – Judicial Exercise – Discretion must be exercised judiciously, soundly, and reasonably – Refusal of specific performance despite established facts would tilt balance unfairly in favor of the defendant, rewarding dishonest conduct – Amendment to Section 10(a) of the Act serves as a guide, emphasizing that specific performance is no longer discretionary [Para 10].

Concurrent Findings – High Court’s Error – High Court improperly interfered with concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court on readiness and willingness – Findings were based on evidence and not perverse – High Court's intervention under Section 100 CPC was unwarranted [Para 7].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Trial Court’s judgment and decree for specific performance restored – Defendants directed to execute the sale deed and hand over possession within four weeks [Para 12].

Constitutional Law – Right to Equality – Ex-employees of a Mill challenged the denial of plots by State instrumentalities – High Court held treating 318 ex-employees differently from 134 others who received free plots as violative of Article 14 – Emphasized vested right in claiming equality and parity enforceable under Article 226 [Paras 1-14].

Allotment of Quarters – Discrimination – 318 ex-employees vacated quarters as per notice, while 134 stayed – Supreme Court ruled that rewarding unauthorized occupation by allotting plots to 134 ex-employees and denying the same to law-abiding 318 is discriminatory – Orders for equal treatment upheld [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Judgment of learned Single Judge directing allotment of plots to 318 ex-employees upheld – High Court's order set aside – Directed respondents to complete allotment within six months [Para 10].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Maintainability of Claim Petition by Mother-in-law – Mother-in-law was living with the deceased and his family – Held that mother-in-law is a legal representative under Section 166 of MV Act and entitled to maintain the claim petition – Dependency established sufficiently [Paras 10-21].

Compensation Calculation – Split Multiplier – High Court applied a split multiplier for pre-retiral and post-retiral periods – Supreme Court held split multiplier inappropriate – Applied standard multiplier considering future prospects – Detailed compensation recalculated with consideration for future prospects and deductions for personal expenses [Paras 22-35].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court's judgment modified – Total compensation recalculated at Rs. 85,81,815 with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization – Directed respondent to deposit the amount within eight weeks [Para 36-37].

SC/ST Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Compromise – Using casteist slur against a neighbor – Compromise reached between the parties – Supreme Court invoked powers under Article 142 to quash the proceedings – Offence considered predominantly private and civil in nature, rooted in a pre-existing civil dispute – No mental depravity exhibited by the appellant – Quashing proceedings seen as advancing peace and harmony given the socio-economic status of both parties [Paras 19-20].

Article 142 of the Constitution – Powers of the Supreme Court – Court reiterated that Article 142 powers could be invoked to quash criminal proceedings, even for non-compoundable offences, when a voluntary compromise is reached – Emphasized complete justice between the parties, considering the nature of the offence and the conduct of the accused [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Criminal proceedings quashed – Judgment and orders passed by the Trial Court and the High Court set aside – Bail bonds discharged [Para 20].

Attempt to Commit Rape – Distinction between Preparation and Attempt – Respondent lured minor girls, took them inside a room, closed the doors, undressed them, and rubbed his genitals against theirs – High Court reduced conviction to 'outraging the modesty' under Section 354 IPC – Supreme Court held acts were beyond preparation and amounted to an attempt to commit rape – Offence of attempt to commit rape upheld [Paras 11-24].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Mens Rea and Attempt – Explained the three stages of crime: Mens Rea, preparation, and attempt – 'Attempt' starts after preparation and is punishable even if the crime is not completed – Specific actions of the respondent were proximate to committing the offence, thus constituting an attempt [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – High Court’s judgment set aside – Conviction under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC restored – Respondent directed to surrender and serve the remainder of his sentence [Paras 25-26].

Administrative Service – Allocation of Cadre – Selected candidate's right to be considered for appointment to IAS but no right to choose cadre or home state – Allocation of cadre an incidence of service – High Court's directive to allocate respondent to Kerala cadre set aside – Consultation required with the state to which allocation is made, not with the candidate's home state – Policy of allocation followed as per rules and procedures [Paras 1-28].

Allocation Circular – Interpretation – Allocation of insiders and outsiders in the ratio of 2:1 – Consultation with State Government where cadre is allocated – Decision on the number of vacancies based on various administrative factors – High Court misread statutory rules and policy of allocation [Paras 23-26].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Orders of the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal set aside – Original application by the respondent dismissed [Paras 48].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Limitation Period – Appeal under Section 61 IBC – Limitation period for filing an appeal is thirty days from the date of the order, extendable by fifteen days upon showing sufficient cause – Time requisite for obtaining a certified copy excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act – Litigant must apply for and obtain a certified copy for filing an appeal – Delay in receipt of a certified copy, once applied for, is excluded from the limitation period calculation – Parties cannot wait for a free certified copy under Section 420(3) of the Companies Act to delay the limitation period [Paras 1-28].

IBC – Calculation of Limitation Period – Clarification that Section 61(2) of the IBC does not include language allowing limitation to be computed from the date the order is made available to the aggrieved party, unlike Section 421(3) of the Companies Act – Ensures timely resolution and avoids delays inherent in insolvency proceedings – Strict adherence to procedural requirements emphasized [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – High Court and NCLAT orders upheld – Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation – Emphasis on due diligence and timely application for a certified copy of the order to avoid delay [Para 24].

Taxation – Nature and Character – Levy of water and sewerage taxes under Section 52 of the UP Water Supply and Sewerage Act – Levy labeled as water tax and sewerage tax – Supreme Court held that the nomenclature does not determine the nature of the levy – Taxes on lands and buildings within the meaning of Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule – Taxes imposed to augment finances for providing water supply and sewerage services [Paras 1-28].

Legislative Competence – Entry 49 List II – Tax on Lands and Buildings – Legislature’s choice of label for the tax does not alter its nature – Supreme Court emphasized the levy’s character as a tax on lands and buildings – Restrictions imposed by Section 55 do not change the tax's fundamental nature [Paras 29-38].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – High Court’s judgment set aside – Levy of water and sewerage taxes upheld – Constitutional challenge to the levy rejected [Paras 39-47].