Criminal proceedings - Quashing of - Power of High Courts under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) - Exercise of power to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure ends of justice - Powers to be exercised sparingly and with caution - Clear case of abuse of process of law must be made out by accused - Guidelines laid down for exercise of powers of quashing in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal followed - Categories of cases provided for illustration - Inordinate delay in filing complaint and absence of substantive evidence considered as crucial factors. [Para 13]

2. Abuse of process of law - Inordinate delay in filing complaint - Unexplained delay of eight years in filing complaint after alleged incident - Delay deemed as misuse and abuse of process of law to settle personal scores - Continuation of malicious prosecution considered as further abuse and misuse of process of law - Prosecution quashed. [Para 17]

3. Frivolous litigation - Need to deter litigants from frivolous, irresponsible, and senseless litigation - Exemplary costs to be imposed on party initiating and continuing frivolous litigation - Serious view taken when individuals claiming to be global spiritual leaders engage in such frivolous litigations - Proliferation of frivolous cases hampers hearing of genuine cases. [Para 20]

4. Power of High Courts - Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - Power to quash proceedings - Guidelines for exercise of power provided in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal followed - Instances where allegations do not constitute offense, allegations are absurd and improbable, or there is an express legal bar to proceedings - Proceedings maliciously instituted also justifiable ground for quashing. [Para 13]

5. Quashing of criminal proceedings - Court's duty to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice - Proceedings quashed when allegations made are absurd and improbable - No prima facie case made out against accused - Complaint filed after inordinate delay of eight years - Complaint deemed as misuse and abuse of process of law. [Para 17]

6. Costs - Exemplary costs imposed on respondent- directed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 with Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association. [Para 22]

Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 304 Part II, IPC - Discrepancies in prosecution evidence - Variance in witness statements - Corroborative testimonies - Medical evidence - Defence version - Appellant convicted by High Court after acquittal by Trial Court - Appeal challenged on grounds of inconsistencies in evidence, non-consideration of defence witness, and passage of time - Held, minor contradictions are normal given the time lapse - Variance in witness statements attributed to inadvertent mistake - Corroborative testimonies support the prosecution's case - Medical evidence confirms the cause of death by a blunt weapon - Defence version with multiple contradictory accounts lacks credibility - High Court's reversal of acquittal justified - Appeal dismissed.

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Locus of subsequent buyer to invoke Section 24(2) - Held, a subsequent buyer of the land after the completion of the acquisition process does not have the locus to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to claim that the acquisition has lapsed. The rights under Section 24(2) are available only to the recorded owners at the time of the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. [Para 7, 10]

Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 - Permission for transfer of land - Effect on subsequent acquisition - Held, obtaining permission for transfer of the land under the 1972 Act does not confer the right to invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and claim that the acquisition has lapsed. The acquisition process remains unaffected by such permission, and subsequent buyers cannot assert rights under Section 24(2).[Para 6]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Effect of subsequent purchase on acquisition - Held, a purchase of land after the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act is void as against the State. Subsequent buyers cannot claim the benefit of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and challenge the acquisition proceedings as having lapsed.[Para 7, 10]

Binding precedent - Division Bench - Constitution Bench - Conflict of opinions - Referring matter to larger bench - Held, when binding decisions of larger benches and coordinate benches are available on the issue, it is not appropriate to refer the matter to a larger bench. The court must follow the binding precedents and cannot depart from them without proper grounds.[Para 10]

Rehabilitation and Resettlement - Purpose of the 2013 Act - Held, the provisions of the 2013 Act aim to provide just and fair compensation and rehabilitation to affected persons whose land has been acquired or is proposed to be acquired. Subsequent purchasers cannot be considered as landowners entitled to restoration of land or claiming benefits under the 2013 Act, as their purchases are based on void transactions.[Para 21, 23]

Public policy - Prohibition on void transactions - Effect on subsequent acquisition - Held, subsequent legislation, like the 2013 Act, does not confer any new rights on purchasers based on void transactions. The provisions of the 2013 Act do not validate such transactions and do not allow purchasers to claim rights to challenge the acquisition proceedings or seek restoration of land.[Para 21, 23]

Land acquisition - Acquisition process - Possession and compensation - Held, for the acquisition to be valid, both possession of the land and payment of compensation are essential. If either of these requirements is not fulfilled, the acquisition may be considered as having lapsed.[Para 1, 5]

High Court's decision - Appellate Court's power - Scope of interference - Held, the appellate court has the power to interfere with the High Court's decision if it is erroneous and contrary to law. In this case, the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition and declaring the acquisition as lapsed based on the subsequent buyer's claim under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.[Para 11]

Appeal allowed - Impugned order set aside - Writ petition dismissed - Held, the appeal is allowed, and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent.

Muslim Law - Wakf - Creation of wakf - Requirements - Property dedicated for pious, religious, or charitable purposes - Express dedication or inferred from facts and circumstances - Long usage for religious or public charitable purposes - No evidence of express dedication or long usage in present case - Suit land not established as wakf property. [Para 25-30]

Wakf Act, 1954 - Notification declaring property as wakf - Procedure - Conducting surveys, settling disputes, submitting reports - Notification must follow prescribed procedure - No evidence of compliance with prescribed procedure in present case - Notification not conclusive proof of suit land being wakf property. [Para 32-35]

High Court's direction in writ appeal - Validity - Appellant Committee's acquiescence and participation in subsequent proceedings - Estopped from disputing jurisdiction or validity of direction - Principle of acquiescence and estoppel - Cannot approbate and reprobate. [Para 38-45]

Appeals - Lack of merit - Dismissal without costs. [Para 46]

Bail application - Rejection of - Co-accused released on bail not surrendering - Whether a relevant factor to decline bail to the appellant - Held, no - Co-accused's actions cannot be attributed to the appellant - Matter requires reconsideration by the High Court.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Offenses under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) - Bail application - Rejection of - Co-accused released on bail not surrendering - Not a germane factor to decline bail to the appellant - High Court directed to reconsider the application and pass orders expeditiously.

High Court - Reconsideration of bail application - Direction to dispose of the same - Preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of the order - Urgency in the disposal of the case.

Criminal Appeal - Bail application rejected - Impugned order set aside - High Court directed to take up the application and pass orders in view of framed charges and proposed examination of prosecution witnesses - Urgent disposal of the case requested.

Land ownership dispute - Nature of Sale Deed - Inconsistent stand by Respondents - Need for clarification on whether it pertains to sale of leasehold rights or title per se - High Court's parallel findings on the nature of Sale Deed criticized - Sale Deed appears to indicate sale of title rather than leasehold rights. (Para 34-38)

Determination of 1924 Lease Deed - Breach of condition of prior approval and expiry of initial lease period - Appellants' contention of breach of clause (e) regarding prior approval highlighted - Records indicating lack of prior approval - Contradictions in the records regarding approval and mutation - High Court's finding on validity of approval unsupported by evidence - Issue of determination of lease remains unresolved. (Para 40-49)

Respondents' claim through tenancy law - Validity of revenue entries - Respondents recorded as 'Occupancy Tenants' in revenue entries - Transferability of 'Occupancy Tenant' status under Section 33 of 1939 Act examined - Exceptions to transferability - Lack of evidence for transfer of status to predecessor of Respondents - High Court's sweeping remarks on tenancy status unsupported by proper analysis - Lack of clarity on proceedings granting occupancy tenant status and its relation to 'Sirdar' status under Zamindari Notification. (Para 50-54)

Lack of conclusive findings and need for remand - Ownership rights in immovable property require careful consideration

Lack of appropriate records hindering decisive conclusion - Appeal remanded to High Court for fresh adjudication on formulated issues and observations - Emphasis on examining original or certified copies of relevant records - Parties directed to maintain status quo during fresh adjudication. (Para 57-61)

Pendency and delay in proceedings - Long duration of appeals - Reluctance to give a final opinion without thorough examination of documents - Need for prompt disposal by High Court - Request for disposal within 12 months - Requisition of original records, including revenue entries and Deputy Commissioner's office records - Direction to Appellant State to assist in early disposal of matters. (Para 59-60)

Appeals allowed in part - Impugned judgments of High Court set aside - Matters remanded to High Court for fresh adjudication - Observations in judgment not treated as final determination - Parties instructed to produce relevant records - Status quo to be maintained during fresh adjudication. (Para 61-62)

Judicial Review - Scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings - The High Court exceeded its scope of judicial review by reappreciating the entire evidence as if it were a criminal trial - Judicial review is limited to evaluating the decision-making process and ensuring fairness - Interference is warranted only in cases of violation of natural justice, statutory rules, absence of evidence, perversity, or mala fides. [Para 6]

Tampering with bid documents - In the case of a tender for the job of 'Repair of Surface Drain and Tank Pad and Tank No. 235, 236 and 237 inside Refinery,' tampering with the bid documents was found to be fully established - The changed form of quotation contained the original signature of the respondent, establishing his involvement - The Division Bench failed to consider this crucial evidence. [Para 7]

Fair opportunity of hearing - The respondent was provided a fair opportunity of hearing at every stage of the inquiry - This was acknowledged by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition challenging the punishment - The Division Bench erred in reexamining the evidence as if it were the first stage of the case. [Para 6]

Standard of review - The Supreme Court reiterated that the constitutional court, in exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review, should not interfere with findings of fact arrived at in departmental enquiry proceedings, unless there is mala fides or perversity - As long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, it must be sustained. [Para 7]

Correcting injustice - The respondent argued that he was made a scapegoat by other employees, and the Division Bench of the High Court rightly corrected the injustice done to him - However, the Supreme Court found that the respondent's involvement in tampering was established, and the Division Bench had erred in setting aside the punishment. [Para 5]

Setting aside of impugned order - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court and restoring the order of the learned Single Judge - The punishment imposed on the respondent was upheld. [Para 8]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 23 - Civil Appeal - Challenge to the judgment and order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - Insurance company repudiating the claim of the insured - Appellant alleging loss caused by malicious act - Burden of proof on insurer - Insurer failed to establish loss caused by malicious act - Surveyor's report opined loss due to insured peril - Insurer failing to provide cogent reasons for rejecting surveyor's report - Appeal dismissed. [Para 9, Para 14, Para 17, Para 18]

Insurance Law - Policy Exclusions - Malicious Act - Interpretation of Clause V(d) of the insurance policy - Exclusion of loss or damage caused by malicious act - Burden of proof on insurer - In case of ambiguity, contract of insurance to be construed in favor of insured - Insurer failed to establish loss caused by malicious act on part of insured. [Para 11, Para 14]

Insurance Law - Surveyor's Report - Admissibility - Finality - Surveyor's report not final or sacrosanct - Insurer required to provide cogent reasons for rejecting surveyor's report - Failure to do so undermines insurer's claim. [Para 17]

Insurance Law - Construction of Policy - Ambiguity - Construction in favor of insured - Where an exclusionary clause exists in an insurance policy, insurer bears the onus to demonstrate that the case falls within the purview of such clause - In case of ambiguity, contract of insurance should be construed in favor of insured. [Para 15]

Insurance Law - Burden of Proof - Loss caused by malicious act - Burden of proof lies with insurer to establish loss caused by malicious act - Failure to establish such causation results in denial of claim. [Para 9]

Appeal Dismissed.

Railway accident – Compensation – Bona fide passenger – Burden of proof – Claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation for death of deceased in untoward incident – Initial burden on claimants to prove deceased was a bona fide passenger – Claimants established deceased’s status as bona fide passenger [Para 18] – Burden shifted to Railway Administration to disprove the same – Failure of Railway Administration to provide evidence refuting deceased’s status as bona fide passenger – Findings of Claims Tribunal and High Court set aside as perverse [Para 19].

Untoward incident – Investigation report – Acceptance by Divisional Railway Manager – Investigation report acknowledging occurrence of untoward incident [Para 15] – Station Master’s statement supporting occurrence [Para 16] – Findings of Claims Tribunal and High Court not considering investigation documents and final report – Findings set aside as perverse [Para 17].

Compensation – Amended Compensation Rules – Calculation of compensation – Liability for compensation arising before amendment – Amount applicable on the date of accident with reasonable interest – Higher of two amounts to be awarded – Entitlement to higher amount if original compensation with interest exceeds amended amount [Para 20] – Rina Devi and Radha Yadav judgments applied [Para 21].

Directions – Payment of compensation – Appellants entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at 7% per annum – Final figure less than Rs. 8,00,000/- - Appellants entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/- [Para 23] – Respondents directed to pay compensation within eight weeks.