Criminal Law – Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Summoning of Additional Accused – Defence Pleas – Petitioner named in FIR but exonerated by Investigating Officers in multiple reports; subsequently summoned by Trial Court – Held: Contentions regarding false implication and police reports constitute defence pleas – Petitioner is at liberty to raise all such contentions during the course of trial at the appropriate stage – The observations in the impugned orders are limited to the purpose of summoning and shall not prejudice the trial. [Paras 2, 7-8, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) – Evasion of Trial vs. Pursuing Legal Remedies – Trial Court issued NBWs for non-appearance while petitioner was approaching High Court and Supreme Court – Held: When a petitioner is pursuing remedies before higher forums, non-appearance before the Trial Court cannot be termed as deliberate or an attempt to evade trial – Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. implies custodial interrogation is not required – No purpose is served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody during a protracted trial – NBWs ordered to be kept in abeyance; petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks and be admitted to bail. [Paras 9-12].

Decision: Petition disposed of. Non-bailable warrants kept in abeyance. Petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks and furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. [Paras 12-13].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Appellant, a former Director of lessee company, was implicated in FIR under Sections 406 and 420 IPC for alleged non-payment of rent and unauthorised retention of leased premises – Supreme Court held that the dispute arose from breach of lease agreement and had been subject to arbitration, where an award was already passed – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings in such context, especially after resignation of appellant, amounts to abuse of process – FIR quashed [Paras 1–11, 16–17].

Arbitration – Precedence over Criminal Proceedings – Lessor invoked arbitration clause and obtained award directing company to vacate premises and pay arrears – Appellant had already resigned prior to award – Court held that once arbitration remedy is invoked and dispute is civil in nature, resort to criminal prosecution is impermissible in absence of clear intent to deceive from inception [Paras 7–11, 16–17].

Director Liability – Post-Resignation Proceedings – Appellant had resigned as Director prior to arbitral award and execution proceedings – No evidence of personal enrichment or involvement in continued possession of premises – Held: Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained against former Director where no active role shown post-resignation [Paras 10–11, 15–17].

Misuse of Criminal Law – Allegations without Mens Rea – Complaint filed after arbitral award and after restitution of possession – FIR filed without making company a party – No specific allegation of dishonest intention at inception or post-resignation conduct – Held: Absence of mens rea and lack of material against appellant justify quashing under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 8–11, 15–17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – FIR/Crime No. 514 of 2017 dated 07.12.2017 against the appellant quashed – Criminal proceedings held to be an abuse of process – No offence made out under Sections 406 or 420 IPC.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Hostile Eyewitness – Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery from accessible place and broken chain of custody – Motive unproved – FSL correlation insufficient – Acquittal restored – Conviction set aside [Paras 13, 16, 17, 21–24].

Criminal Trial – Hostile Eyewitness – Evidentiary Value – FIR naming “unknown persons” – Subsequent naming of accused in supplementary statement – Eyewitness (PW-1) and first responder (PW-5) turned hostile and denied presence of accused – No identification parade conducted – Held: Prosecution failed to establish presence or identity of accused at the scene of crime – Hostile testimony destroys substratum of prosecution case [Paras 12–13].

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Scope of “distinctly relates to the fact discovered” – Disclosure statement must clearly relate to weapon used in the crime – Accused’s disclosure did not state that recovered pistol was the same used in murder – Observed: Recovery statement did not satisfy statutory test of “distinctly” connecting weapon to offence – Cannot be relied upon to sustain conviction [Paras 14–15].

Recovery – Arms Act – Weapon seized from unlocked iron box in room accessible to family members – No independent witness to recovery – Memo shows box was open; articles not exclusively within control of accused – Held: Recovery from accessible location weakens probative value; cannot singularly constitute incriminating circumstance – Chain of custody from Malkhana to FSL not proved – Gap of 19 days unexplained – Seal T2 insufficient to establish identity of recovered article [Paras 16–17, 23].

Circumstantial Evidence – FSL Report – Bullets found in body matched cartridges said to be recoverable by seized pistol – But prosecution failed to establish unbroken chain connecting recovery, storage, and deposit – Identification of weapon not satisfactorily proved – FSL match alone cannot establish guilt when link evidence is broken – Held: FSL report cannot substitute foundational proof [Paras 16, 23].

Motive – Co-accused (family members) discharged or acquitted – No independent evidence showing motive against appellant except alleged friendship with acquitted co-accused – Alleged quid pro quo speculative and unproven – Held: Motive wholly unestablished; cannot support conviction in absence of other evidence [Paras 14, 22].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Standard of Proof – Recovery doubtful; eyewitnesses hostile; motive unproved; no last-seen evidence – Chain of circumstances incomplete – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court and High Court erred in convicting appellant solely on recovery-based theory supported by FSL report – Acquittal directed [Paras 22–25].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce on Ground of Cruelty – Remand – Respondent-husband’s divorce petition was initially dismissed by the trial court – High Court reversed the finding and granted divorce on ground of cruelty based solely on oral testimony of the husband – Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to consider key questions including whether the appellant-wife was thrown out or voluntarily left matrimonial home, and whether earlier withdrawal of cruelty petition barred second on same cause – Held: Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law [Paras 2-4, 6-7]

Family Law – Mental Cruelty – Evaluation of Evidence – Supreme Court emphasized that before granting divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown or cruelty, the Court must undertake a comprehensive analysis of conduct, social background, and responsibility for separation – High Court failed to conduct such exercise – Remand ordered [Paras 4-6]

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Judicial Approach – Court cautioned against using irretrievable breakdown as a blanket ground for divorce without attributing responsibility for breakdown – Importance of examining which party caused the separation and consequences on the child stressed – Held: Determination must be rooted in evidence and fairness [Paras 5-6]

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Judgment of High Court set aside – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication by High Court – Parties directed to appear before High Court on 24.11.2025 [Paras 7-8]

Revenue Recovery – Auction of immovable property – Statutory remedy under Sections 37-A/38 not invoked – 30-day limitation mandatory – Interim stay on confirmation does not extend limitation – Deposit under court orders not equivalent to statutory deposit – Sale validly confirmed and rights accrued to auction purchaser – Challenge barred – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14-18, 20-22, 25-26].

Revenue Recovery – Mandatory statutory remedy – Sections 37-A and 38 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act – 30-day limitation – The Act provides a complete mechanism for setting aside a sale either by deposit (S. 37-A) or by alleging fraud/irregularity (S. 38). Both require filing an application within 30 days of the sale. Appellant admittedly filed none. Held: Limitation is mandatory, statutory remedy cannot be bypassed, and writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to revive a time-barred challenge [Paras 14-15].

Interim Orders – Effect on statutory limitation – High Court’s interim order only stayed confirmation of sale, not the conduct of auction. Auction on 29.07.2005 valid. Stay on confirmation does not suspend or extend the statutory obligation to file application within 30 days. Pendency of writ does not toll statutory limitation. Contention that no application was necessary rejected [Paras 16-18].

Revenue Recovery – Challenge to dues – Ex-parte decree of 1987 – Decree quantifying arrears was never challenged. Once arrears certified as recoverable under Revenue Recovery Act, authorities competent to proceed under the Act. Limitation plea under Article 112 and argument that execution should proceed under CPC held untenable [Para 19].

Auction Sale – Rights of auction purchaser – Finality after confirmation – Auction held on 29.07.2005; purchaser deposited full amount; sale confirmed on 23.07.2008. Held: Upon confirmation of sale, rights accrue in favour of purchaser and can be interfered with only on proof of fraud or substantial irregularity. None proved. Property already transferred to bona fide purchasers. Transaction attained finality [Paras 20-21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope – High Court rightly refused to entertain belated challenge when specific statutory remedy not availed. Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent mandatory statutory procedures or reopen time-barred proceedings. Findings of High Court proper and well-reasoned [Para 22].

Review Jurisdiction – Limited scope – Review cannot act as appeal in disguise. No error apparent on face of record shown. High Court correctly dismissed review relying on binding precedents (Lily Thomas; Parsion Devi) [Paras 23-24].

Held: Appellant failed to invoke Sections 37-A/38 within limitation – Auction conducted and confirmed as per law – Interim stay did not excuse non-compliance with statutory mechanism – No illegality, irregularity, or fraud established – High Court orders upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 25-26].

Revenue Recovery – Challenge to Auction Sale – Delay – Writ Not Maintainable – Appellant failed to invoke statutory remedies under Sections 37-A and 38 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 within 30 days – Auction held on 29.07.2005 and confirmed on 23.07.2008 – Payments made during writ proceedings cannot substitute compliance with statutory procedure – Interim stay on confirmation of sale did not suspend statutory obligations – No material irregularity or fraud proved in sale process – Challenge dismissed as barred by limitation [Paras 3, 14–16, 18, 22, 25].

Revenue Recovery – Auction Sale – Statutory Bar – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – Appellant challenged auction of ancestral property under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act without filing an application under Sections 37-A or 38 to set aside the sale – Auction held on 29.07.2005, confirmed on 23.07.2008 – Challenge made after 4 years without invoking statutory remedies – Held: Writ petition and review rightly dismissed by High Court as belated and not maintainable [Paras 3, 15, 22].

Limitation – Revenue Recovery Act – Sections 37-A and 38 – Strict Compliance Required – Appellant argued that pending writ proceedings and interim stay on confirmation of sale obviated the need to file an application under the Act – Rejected – Court held that interim orders do not suspend statutory limitation – 30-day limit to challenge auction must be strictly followed – Payments made during pendency of writ proceedings not a substitute for filing under Section 37-A [Paras 14–16, 18].

Civil Procedure vs. Revenue Recovery – Mode of Execution – Appellant’s contention that 1987 ex-parte decree should have been enforced under Civil Procedure Code and not through Revenue Recovery rejected – Held: Once arrears certified under Revenue Recovery Act, proceedings under that Act valid – Recovery not barred by limitation under Article 112 of Limitation Act [Paras 8, 19].

Rights of Auction Purchaser – Confirmation of Sale – Citing Valji Khimji v. Official Liquidator, Supreme Court reiterated that once a sale is confirmed, rights of auction-purchaser become final and cannot be disturbed except for fraud or material irregularity – No such irregularity shown – Sale certificate issued, property registered and transferred to bona fide purchasers – Challenge held to be infructuous [Paras 20–21].

Judicial Review – Scope of Review Petition – Review petition dismissed as no error apparent on record shown – Writ petition, appeal and review all adjudicated on merits – Findings of High Court found to be reasoned, consistent with law and not perverse – Review cannot be treated as appeal in disguise [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Auction sale and its confirmation upheld – High Court’s orders in writ appeal and review application affirmed – No interference warranted [Paras 25–26].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based Solely on Recovery – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act on basis of recovery of pistol and cartridges allegedly used in murder – Prosecution case unsupported by eyewitnesses – PW-1 (complainant) and PW-5 (alleged responder) turned hostile – No other material evidence connecting appellant to crime scene – Held: Recovery from shared space accessible to others not sufficient for conviction – Conviction set aside [Paras 5, 13, 16, 22-24]

Evidence Law – Disclosure Statements – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Confessional statement of accused in police custody inadmissible – Recovery must be distinctly connected to fact discovered – Appellant’s disclosure did not specify pistol was used in offence – Recovery from unlocked iron box in common household area with no independent witness – Held: Disclosure and recovery insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 14-16, 22-24]

Witness Testimony – Hostile Eyewitnesses – PW-1 named appellant in supplementary statement five days after FIR and claimed to be eyewitness – Later denied seeing the incident and turned hostile – No identification parade conducted – PW-5 also turned hostile – Held: Testimony of both witnesses unreliable – Prosecution failed to prove presence of appellant at crime scene [Paras 12-13, 22-23]

Motive – Absence of Personal Motive – Motive alleged against co-accused (mother-in-law, brother-in-law) who were either acquitted or not chargesheeted – Appellant’s alleged role based on speculative friendship with co-accused – No evidence of personal grudge or benefit – Held: Motive theory unproven and cannot sustain conviction [Paras 14, 22-23]

Forensic Evidence – Chain of Custody Not Established – Recovered weapon kept in police Malkhana for 19 days before sending to FSL – No clarity on when article was removed for testing – No independent witness to confirm seizure or storage – FSL report cannot solely sustain conviction without proper chain of custody [Paras 16, 23]

Precedents – Applicability – Cases cited by prosecution (Jeet Singh, Bharat Dhiwar, Lochan Srivas) distinguished – Those cases involved recovery from exclusive premises and were supported by corroborative evidence – Present case lacked supporting evidence and recovery was from shared space – Held: Precedents not applicable to present facts [Paras 17-21]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – Appellant to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Para 25]

Inter-State Water Dispute – Cauvery Water Sharing – Mekedatu Project – Tamil Nadu’s challenge to Karnataka’s preparation of DPR for Mekedatu Dam rejected – Supreme Court held: Karnataka only permitted to prepare DPR, subject to expert scrutiny and approval by CWMA – No interference warranted at this stage – Application filed by Tamil Nadu found premature and misconceived – States bound to comply with allocation as per CWDT Award as modified by Supreme Court – Appeal and connected applications dismissed [Paras 1–31]

Water Law – Preparation of Detailed Project Report (DPR) – Objections by Lower Riparian State – Tamil Nadu sought stay on permission granted by Central Water Commission (CWC) to Karnataka for preparing DPR of Mekedatu Dam – Held: CWC’s permission is only for preparation of DPR, not for execution – DPR subject to approval of Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) – No final approval granted yet – Application dismissed as premature [Paras 1, 8, 15–16, 26–27]

Federalism – Inter-State Resource Management – Rights of States – Supreme Court reiterated: Every State has the right to manage water allocated to it under CWDT Award as modified by Court – No State can object to how another State uses its allocated share unless it reduces the share of the complaining State – Karnataka is entitled to utilise its quota through infrastructure like Mekedatu Dam, provided it complies with CWMA directives – [Paras 28–29]

Judicial Deference to Expert Bodies – Role of CWMA and CWRC – Disputes over water release during Monsoon 2023 also raised earlier – Supreme Court reiterated lack of judicial expertise in technical water management – Directed such issues to be handled by CWMA and CWRC – Held: Courts must refrain from interfering when expert bodies are in seisin of the matter – [Paras 21, 24–25, 30]

Environmental Compliance – Reuse and Return of Domestic Use Water – Tamil Nadu sought directions to Karnataka to return 80% treated water to Cauvery River system and not divert it to Pennaiyar basin – Supreme Court: Such grievances must be raised before CWMA and CWC – Directed expert bodies to act expeditiously upon such complaints – Judicial intervention not warranted at this stage – [M.A. No. 1869/2023 – Paras 1–5]

Public Interest Litigation – Water Disputes – Writ Petition seeking enforcement of CWDT Award dismissed – Held: CWMA and CWRC are competent statutory bodies for implementation of Award – No separate judicial direction required – [W.P.(C) No. 914/2023 – Paras 1–2]

Contempt Petition – Alleged Non-Compliance of Water Release – Disposed in view of present judgment – No finding of wilful disobedience – Karnataka reminded of its duty to comply with CWMA directives or face contempt – [Contempt Petition (C) No. 2210/2018 – Para 28]

Decision: Miscellaneous Applications, Contempt Petition, and Writ Petition dismissed – Karnataka may proceed with DPR preparation, subject to expert scrutiny – Tamil Nadu may raise objections before CWMA/CWC – No interference by Supreme Court at this stage [Paras 27, 31]

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings – Misappropriation – Judicial Review – Gramin Dak Sevak/Branch Postmaster found to have misappropriated public funds; admitted guilt and later deposited amounts – Inquiry conducted with full opportunity; no procedural violation – High Court set aside removal by reappreciating evidence and accepting new plea of coercion – Held: High Court exceeded judicial review jurisdiction; disciplinary authority’s penalty of removal restored – Appeal allowed [Paras 3, 7–12].

Service Law – Departmental Misconduct – Misappropriation of Public Funds – GDS/Branch Postmaster - Irregularities found during inspection (16.06.2011) revealed misappropriation of recurring deposit instalments and insurance premium despite entries stamped in passbooks; corresponding entries missing in official account books – Chargesheet issued (17.12.2013) – Inquiry Officer found charges proved – Respondent admitted embezzlement and deposited amounts; sought forgiveness – Held: Evidence clearly established embezzlement; deposit of misappropriated amount does not absolve misconduct [Paras 2, 5–10].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Reappreciation of Evidence Impermissible - High Court examined merits, revisited admissions, and accepted plea of coercion not raised during inquiry – Supreme Court held that judicial review is confined to examining legality of procedure, not merits or sufficiency of evidence – High Court erred in interfering with concurrent findings of Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Tribunal [Paras 3–4, 11].

Departmental Inquiry – Admission of Guilt – Later Retraction – Effect - Respondent’s statement dated 28.04.2012 admitted spending deposited amounts for household purposes – Retraction on allegation of Inspector’s pressure raised belatedly and rejected – Held: Explanation an afterthought; inquiry and opportunity proper; no defect found in procedure [Paras 7–9, 11].

Banking/Post Office – Fiduciary Relationship – Public Confidence - Court emphasised that banking/postal transactions rely on trust – Passbook entry satisfies depositor; depositor has no means to check official account books – Misappropriation discovered only incidentally; cannot be trivialised as “mistake” or “ignorance” by employee with 12 years of service – Ignorance of rules not acceptable [Para 11].

Punishment – Removal from Service – Proportionality - Considering gravity of involving financial integrity and public trust, punishment of removal held justified – High Court erred in substituting its view on proportionality without finding procedural infirmity – Penalty restored [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Punishment of removal from service upheld [Para 12].