Criminal Appeal – Further Investigation – Appellant, widow of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, seeks further investigation into her husband's murder – Allegations of police abandonment and involvement of specific individuals – Special Magistrate orders further investigation – High Court's hyper-technical approach in distinguishing re-investigation from further investigation criticized – High Court's order set aside, confirming Special Magistrate's directive for further investigation. [Para 1-11]

Trial Proceedings – Trial court directed to continue proceedings in Session Trial No. 239 of 2014 related to the same incident – Final order to be deferred until completion of further investigation – Disposal of special leave petition in accordance with the above terms. [Para 12-13]

Anticipatory Bail – Appellant accused of offenses under Section 376(2)(n) and 406 IPC – Denial of anticipatory bail by lower courts – Appellant cooperated with the investigation – Charge sheet filed – Case for trial – Appellant granted anticipatory bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial Court. [Para 1-3]

False Complaint – Allegation of false complaint by the respondent-complainant due to a failed marriage proposal – Appellant's cooperation with the investigation considered – Observations made in the order only for the purpose of considering anticipatory bail. [Para 4-5]

Release on Anticipatory Bail – Appellant released on anticipatory bail – Conditions to be imposed by the trial Court. [Para 6]

Income Tax Appeal – Challenge to Settlement Commission's decision – High Court remanded matter to Settlement Commission for reconsideration of immunity from penalty and prosecution – Appellant aggrieved by High Court's decision – Appeal filed. [Para 2.11]

Settlement Commission – Jurisdiction to entertain application – Preliminary objection raised by Revenue – Settlement Commission upheld maintainability of the application – Order passed by Settlement Commission challenged before High Court – High Court remanded matter to Settlement Commission for reconsideration of immunity – Appellant challenges High Court's decision. [Para 2.11]

Immunity from Penalty and Prosecution – Settlement Commission granted immunity to appellant – High Court found fault with the reasoning of the Settlement Commission – Remanded the matter for reconsideration of immunity – Appellant contests the High Court's decision on immunity. [Para 2.13]

Legal Framework – Interpretation of Sections 245C and 245H of the Income Tax Act in the context of granting immunity from prosecution and penalty for income disclosure before the Settlement Commission. [Para 5-7]

Discretionary Power – The Settlement Commission's discretionary power to grant immunity is based on the assessee's full and true disclosure of income and cooperation with the Commission, without a strict requirement for material different from that discovered by the Assessing Officer. [Para 7-7.2]

Scope of Judicial Review – The scope for judicial review of the Commission's orders is narrow, limited to contravention of the Act's provisions, causing prejudice to the opposite party, fraud, bias, or malice. [Para 10-11]

Avoiding Frequent Interference – Frequent interference with Settlement Commission's orders should be avoided to maintain confidence among bonafide assessees and prevent unnecessary litigation. [Para 13-14]

Decision – The High Court erred in interfering with the Settlement Commission's order, and thus, the Commission's order granting immunity to the appellant from prosecution and penalty is restored. [Para 14]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Dishonor of Cheque - Presumption of consideration - Burden of proof - Admitted signature - The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent for dishonoring a cheque issued for partial repayment of an advance amount paid towards the purchase of a property - The Trial Court convicted the respondent, and the conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge - The respondent raised a new contention before the High Court regarding the circumstances under which he signed the cheque - High Court allowed the Revision Petition, setting aside the conviction order, holding that the appellant had not proved payment of the advance amount, and the agreement for the property transaction was doubtful - On appeal, the Supreme Court reinstated the Trial Court's conviction order, emphasizing that the respondent did not successfully rebut the presumption of consideration arising from the admitted signature on the cheque - The Court considered the respondent's new contention but found it unsubstantiated, as it was raised for the first time during the arguments before the High Court and lacked supporting evidence - The Court modified the sentence to impose an enhanced fine instead of imprisonment, considering the age of the case, the non-commercial nature of the transaction, and the possibility of social and economic changes in the parties' status over time - The respondent was given the option to pay the fine, and in case of default, he would serve a six-month imprisonment.

Disability Assessment - Evaluation of disability claims by Medical Board - Reports issued by the Medical Board upholding the claim of petitioners as persons with disabilities - No further clarification deemed necessary - Petitioners' claims upheld. [Para 1-3]

Admission of Disabled Students - Direction to treat the petitioners as persons with disabilities and consider their applications for admission - Compliance with other admission parameters required - Writ Petitions allowed accordingly. [Para 2-3]

Review of Disability Assessments - Need for detailed evaluation and reasoning in disability assessments - Lack of reasoning in the reports issued by the Medical Board - Direction to provide clarificatory note with elaborate reasoning based on the evaluation conducted - Consideration of recent developments in medical sciences - Petitioners' conditions and potential aids to be assessed - Earmarking of seats for disabled candidates in the counseling process - Compliance with principles of merit in allocation - Concerns regarding the benchmark disability criteria under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - One size fits all norm and potential anomalies - Directive to the Union to consider steps to mitigate such issues and enable effective participation - Listing for further proceedings. [Para 7-14]

Family Law – Maintenance Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Modification of maintenance order - Appellant challenges the High Court's modification of maintenance granted to the respondent No. 1-wife and son - High Court modified the maintenance order to be payable from the date of filing the application for maintenance - Appellant contends that the maintenance granted is excessive and questions the starting date of payment - Appellant's concealed receipt of compensation amounts revealed during the proceedings - Maintenance ordered to be payable at different rates and from different dates based on the appellant's income and circumstances - Appeals partly allowed, and modified maintenance orders issued. [Para 3-8]

Family Dispute – Mediation – Resolution of matrimonial disputes – Multiple cases filed by both parties – Decree of divorce already passed – Agreement reached on permanent alimony and visiting rights for the child – Criminal and civil cases between parties – All civil cases withdrawn, and criminal proceedings quashed – Certificates to be returned to the respondent/wife – Parties urged to cooperate for the sake of the child. [Para 1-7]

Criminal Appeal – Anticipatory Bail – Denial of anticipatory bail by the High Court – Appellants sought anticipatory bail in three separate cases – Non-disclosure of relevant facts regarding initiation of proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. – Interim protection granted but subsequently found that relevant facts were not disclosed – Appellants not entitled to pre-arrest bail – Appeals dismissed. [Para 2-4]

Non-disclosure of relevant facts – Failure to mention the issuance of process under Section 82, Cr.P.C., and dismissal of Revision Petition against the same – Appellants approaching the Court with no clean hands – Lack of entitlement to leniency or favor – Disentitlement to relief at this stage. [Para 4]

Land Acquisition Dispute - Contempt Proceedings - Fresh Demarcation Ordered - Disposition of Special Leave Petition - Allegation against respondent Authority for utilizing land without proper acquisition process, including the construction of a bus stand - Previous proceedings led to the quashing of acquisition proceedings but allowed for compensation or possession restoration - Contempt initiated due to non-compliance - Contention over the specific land - Court orders a fresh demarcation by Revenue Authorities, compensation if construction found on Khasra No.276, restoration if unoccupied - Question of damages left open for future proceedings - Parties to approach Revenue Authorities for demarcation on 09th October, 2023.