Quashing of Summoning Order – Delay in Complaint – Vague Allegations – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Supreme Court quashed proceedings initiated under a private complaint after finding four-year delay in lodging FIR for alleged 2010 incident – Allegations of rape and caste abuse were held to be vague, inconsistent, and unsupported by material evidence – Summoning of accused and parents held to be gross abuse of process [Paras 4–15, 22–24].

Frivolous and Vexatious Litigation – Judicial Caution Emphasized – Summons Must Not Be Issued Lightly – Citing Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, Court reiterated that false, motivated criminal proceedings deserve closer scrutiny – Summoning based on fabricated or exaggerated narrative can seriously harm reputation – Courts must carefully assess allegations, context, and delay [Paras 16–17].

Consensual Relationship vs. Rape – False Promise of Marriage – Legal Test Restated – Court reiterated that failed promise of marriage does not automatically amount to rape – Referred to Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, 2013 Cri LJ 2990 – Held: Distinction must be made between false promise made with intent to deceive and mere failure to marry due to changed circumstances [Paras 18–19].

Section 482 CrPC – Principles for Quashing Restated – Four-Step Test – Reiterated the Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor framework – Courts must consider if evidence is unimpeachable, rebuts complaint, and prosecution cannot reasonably refute it – If yes, continuation of proceedings is abuse of process [Para 20].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Criminal Case Quashed – Supreme Court allowed appeal, set aside Allahabad High Court’s order, and quashed proceedings in Criminal Case No. 655/2014 pending before Additional CJM, Allahabad [Paras 24–25].

Family Law - Child Custody/Visitation – Best Interests of the Child – Sections 25 GWA & 13-B HMA – Video Interaction Directed – Matrimonial discord led to competing custody proceedings; High Court dismissed father’s appeal noting prior breach of interim custody and child’s residence with mother – Before Supreme Court, father confined relief to video-conference visitation – Held: Welfare and emotional needs of child paramount; without disturbing settled custody in Ireland, father to have structured video access – Directions: two hours on every alternate Sunday from 10:00 AM to 12:00 noon (Ireland time); parties to cooperate and resolve logistics – Appeal disposed with directions [Paras 5–12, esp. 8–11].

Overseas Relocation – Non-disturbance of Settled Environment – Child presently residing with mother in Ireland and appears settled – In the child’s best interest, existing caregiving arrangement not to be unsettled; access tailored via virtual contact to preserve father–child bond [Paras 8–10].

Visitation via Video-Conferencing – Child’s Right to Affection of Both Parents – Court emphasizes a child’s entitlement to love and guidance of both parents notwithstanding parental discord or residence in different countries – Regular virtual contact ordered as fair and necessary to sustain relationship [Paras 9–11].

Parental Conduct and Welfare Principle – Fault Not Determinative – Though conduct of both parents “not ideal”, custody/visitation must be fashioned around the child’s emotional, mental and physical well-being; welfare principle overrides adversarial positions [Paras 6–7].

Scope of Appeal – Limited Relief – Without reopening merits of custody or High Court’s dismissal, Supreme Court grants limited relief to secure virtual visitation in aid of the child’s welfare; prior proceedings and interim breaches do not preclude calibrated contact orders [Paras 3.8–3.13, 5, 8–11].

Decision – Appeal Disposed – Directions Issued – Structured video access granted to father: alternate Sundays, two hours, 10:00 AM–12:00 noon (Ireland time); cooperation mandated; logistical/technical issues to be mutually resolved in the child’s paramount interest – Appeal and pending applications disposed of [Paras 11–13].

Criminal Law – Rape Allegation – Delay in Complaint – Summoning Order Quashed – Private complaint filed in 2014 alleging rape and caste atrocity based on incidents from 2010 – Cognizance taken under Section 376 IPC after magisterial inquiry – Appellant alleged consensual relationship and misuse of legal process – Held: Four-year unexplained delay, lack of material particulars, and vague, unsubstantiated allegations rendered the complaint inherently doubtful – Summoning order quashed as abuse of process [Paras 4–6, 10–15, 22–24]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process – Complaint found to be manifestly frivolous and vexatious – Allegations lacked specificity in date, time, and location – Complainant refused to accept Supreme Court notice – Held: High Court erred in not exercising inherent powers to quash proceedings – Test for quashing includes examining overall circumstances beyond bare allegations – Continuation of trial would cause injustice and tarnish reputation of accused [Paras 13–17, 20–23]

Consent and Rape – Distinction Between Consensual Sex and Rape – Promise to Marry – Court emphasized that false promise to marry must be shown to be made with mala fide intent from inception – In absence of such evidence, consensual sexual relations cannot ipso facto lead to charge of rape – Cited Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana on need for proof of deceitful intent at inception [Paras 18–19]

Legal Principles – Test for Quashing – Supreme Court reiterated four-step test from Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor – Whether material relied upon is unimpeachable, rebuts complaint, cannot be refuted by prosecution, and whether continuation would be abuse of process – All conditions met in present case [Para 20]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Summoning order dated 25.08.2015 quashed – Criminal Case No. 655/2014 before ACJM, Allahabad, terminated – All pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Writ – PIL - Constitutional Validity – Section 376DA IPC – Challenge to mandatory life imprisonment “for remainder of natural life” – Question left open – Petitioner assailed the provision as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 21 for excluding judicial discretion and mitigating circumstances – Court held that validity cannot be examined in vacuum in a PIL without concrete factual backdrop; issue left to be raised in appropriate case – Petition disposed of [Paras 5–7, 10–12].

Sentencing – Scope of punishment under Section 376DA IPC – Though mandatory life imprisonment stipulated, accused retains constitutional and statutory rights of remission under Articles 72 & 161 of the Constitution, Section 432 CrPC, and equivalent provisions under BNSS – Each State’s remission policy applies even to sentences under Sections 376DA & 376DB IPC [Paras 9.2–9.5].

Judicial Remedies – Conviction and sentence under Section 376DA IPC subject to appeal before High Court and Supreme Court – Additional remedies of constitutional and statutory remission safeguard against rigidity – Prescription of punishment reflects legislative policy considering egregious nature of offence [Paras 7–9].

Decision – Writ Petition disposed of; question of law on constitutional validity of Section 376DA IPC kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case – Impleadment application also disposed [Paras 10–12].

Company Law – Oppression & Mismanagement – Jurisdiction – Gift/Share Transfer – Board Meetings – NCLAT interference set aside – Appeals allowed – NCLT order restored – Parties to bear own costs – [Paras 17, 19, 24-31, 42-46, 47-53, 55-56]

Background – Private company (Sargam Exim Pvt. Ltd., later Satori Global Ltd.) incorporated in 2006 – Appellant initially held 39,500/40,000 shares (>98%) after transfers and fresh issue – Marital discord with R-2 – Alleged resignation and gift of entire shareholding to mother-in-law (R-4) dated 17.12.2010 – Board meetings on 15.12.2010 and 17.12.2010 – Conversion to public company in June 2011 – Appellant lodged police complaints alleging coercion/blank papers – NCLT (04.09.2018) allowed petition under Ss. 397/398 (1956 Act), restored appellant as director and shareholder, set aside transfers and meetings – NCLAT (02.06.2023) reversed on maintainability/jurisdiction – Present civil appeals against NCLAT – [Paras 2-18, 19]

Maintainability – Petition under Ss. 397/398 (1956 Act) held maintainable – NCLT’s reasoning approved – Allegations of fraud/coercion/fabrication justified invoking oppression/mismanagement jurisdiction notwithstanding S.399 threshold objection – [Paras 24-25]

NCLT’s Jurisdiction – Wide, plenary powers under Ss. 397/398 read with jurisprudence (Radharamanan – Kamal Kumar Dutta – TCS v. Cyrus) – Tribunal can decide issues integral/incidental to oppression/mismanagement, including validity of gift deed/transfer when central to controversy – No specific statutory bar shown – NCLAT erred in holding otherwise – [Paras 26-31]

Oppression & Mismanagement – Tests reaffirmed (Meyer – Harmer – Shanti Prasad Jain – Needle Industries – Hind Overseas – Dale & Carrington – Sangramsinh Gaekwad – V.S. Krishnan) – Series of actions lacking probity and fair dealing, burdensome/harsh/wrong to appellant, prejudicing proprietary rights – Present facts satisfy the tests – [Paras 32-42, 54]

Gift Deed – Invalid under Articles – Article 16 does not permit gift transfer to “mother-in-law” – Actions contrary to AoA cannot defeat member’s rights (ref. VB Rangaraj) – Surrounding circumstances suspect: deed recites “love and affection” yet FIR by transferee (R-4) regarding jewellery on same date 17.12.2010 undermines narrative – [Paras 43-44]

Share Transfer Forms – Vitiated – Executed/used beyond validity – Overwriting/mismatch of dates to fit within purported extension – Transfers set aside – Court declines to rule on Registrar’s extension power since RoC not a party and decision unnecessary given invalidity otherwise – [Paras 45-46]

Board Meetings – Invalidly conducted – Mandatory notice to all directors (AoA cls. 30, 61; S.286, 1956 Act) not proved – Absence of minutes – Reliance on guard’s receipt pertains to EOGM (20.06.2011), not board meetings in issue – Inconsistent stands by respondents across fora – [Paras 48-50]

Quorum – AoA cl. 53 requires two validly appointed directors – On 15.12.2010 only appellant and R-3 were directors; in appellant’s absence quorum not met – Induction of R-5 as additional director on 15.12.2010 itself illegal, hence his presence on 17.12.2010 could not cure defect – Resolutions including acceptance of alleged resignation invalid – [Paras 51-53]

Result – Series of acts demonstrate oppression/mismanagement – NCLAT’s interference unwarranted – Supreme Court sets aside NCLAT and restores NCLT’s order – Civil appeals allowed – No order as to costs – [Paras 54-56]

Decision: Appeals allowed – NCLAT judgment dated 02.06.2023 set aside – NCLT judgment dated 04.09.2018 restored (including restoration of appellant as director and shareholder; invalidation of gift/transfer and impugned board resolutions) – Parties to bear own costs – [Paras 17, 55-56]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Vague Allegations and Delay – Proceedings Quashed – Private complaint filed in 2014 for alleged offences of 2010 including rape under Section 376 IPC and SC/ST Act – Magistrate summoned appellant after inquiry under Section 202 CrPC – High Court rejected quashing – Supreme Court held complaint vague, bereft of particulars, unexplained delay of 4 years, no corroborative evidence, complainant even avoided Court’s notice – Continuation of proceedings would be abuse of process – Summoning order and proceedings quashed [Paras 9–16, 21–24].

False Promise of Marriage – Distinction Between Rape and Consensual Relationship – Court reiterated law that consensual sex on account of love/passion differs from sex induced by false promise of marriage – Only if mala fide intent at inception is proved can it amount to rape – Reliance placed on Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, 2013 Cri LJ 2990 – In present case, allegations not credible, no evidence of initial mala fide intent [Paras 18–19].

Frivolous Complaints – Court’s Duty – Courts must closely scrutinize complaints that appear vexatious or filed with ulterior motives – Reference made to Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, and Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) Cr.A. 174 – Courts should assess overall circumstances, not merely complaint averments, to prevent harassment of accused [Paras 17, 20].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Criminal Case No.655/2014 pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad quashed – Pending applications disposed [Paras 22–24].

Property Law – Transfer of Immovable Property – Title Dispute – Appeal against concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court decreeing plaintiff’s suit for possession, mesne profits, declaration, and injunction – Plaintiff relied upon Agreement to Sell, GPA, Affidavit, Receipt, and Registered Will to claim title – Supreme Court held that such documents do not confer valid title under Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act – Sale of immovable property can only be by registered sale deed – Held: Plaintiff not entitled to relief as no valid conveyance executed – Appeal allowed – Suit dismissed [Paras 11-19, 27-28, 35]

General Power of Attorney – Scope and Legal Effect – GPA relied upon by Plaintiff only authorised management of property, not transfer of ownership – GPA, even if valid, does not transfer title – Held: GPA is an instrument of agency, not a conveyance – No title conferred on Plaintiff through GPA – Power of Attorney is revocable and cannot be used to create proprietary rights [Paras 18-22]

Will – Validity and Proof – Registered Will dated 16.05.1996 propounded by Plaintiff found unproven – Plaintiff failed to examine attesting witnesses as mandated under Section 68 of Evidence Act and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act – Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances, including complete exclusion of three other children without justification – Held: Will not proved in accordance with law – No valid title derived by Plaintiff [Paras 23-27]

Doctrine of Part Performance – Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act – Plaintiff sought protection under doctrine of part performance – Supreme Court held that actual possession is precondition to invoke Section 53A – Plaintiff not in possession at the time of filing suit – Relief under Section 53A not available [Paras 29-31]

Succession – Absence of Valid Transfer or Will – On demise of original owner (father), property devolves upon all Class-I legal heirs – Plaintiff’s claim based on unproven Will and invalid sale documents rejected – Held: Property to be treated as intestate succession among legal heirs [Para 32]

Rights of Bona Fide Purchaser – Defendant No.2 purchased 50% share from Defendant No.1 – Supreme Court protected such share to the extent of Defendant No.1’s right – Held: Rights of Defendant No.2 preserved to the extent of seller’s share – Parties free to assert claims through appropriate legal proceedings [Paras 33-34]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of High Court and Trial Court set aside – Plaintiff’s suit dismissed – No costs – Rights of Defendant No.2 protected to extent of seller’s share [Para 35]

Probate—Escheat—Locus of State—Sections 8–13, 29, 30 HSA; Sections 63, 263 IS Act—State has no standing to assail probate where Will stands proved and probated—Grant of probate renders escheat inapplicable; Government is a stranger to probate/succession proceedings unless there is failure of heirs upon intestacy—SLPs by State dismissed on locus—Explained with reference to “State of Rajasthan v. Lord Northbrook” and Delhi HC’s judgment granting probate [Paras 1–6.5, 7–8].

Succession—Testamentary vs. Intestate—Sections 8–13, 29, 30 HSA—Where a competent court finds the Will valid and grants probate, succession is testamentary and devolves as per the Will; escheat under Section 29 arises only on failure of heirs upon intestacy—Held, doctrine of bona vacantia has no play when probate subsists [Paras 4–6, 6.5].

Probate Practice—Revocation—Section 263 IS Act—Who may challenge—Only those who would succeed if the Will failed (i.e., heirs under HSA) may appeal/revoke probate; State cannot do so merely by invoking a State Escheats statute—Clarified [Paras 6.2, 6.4].

Evidence—Proof of Will—Section 63 IS Act & Section 68 Evidence Act—Delhi High Court’s finding of due execution and proof affirmed as context; probate upheld—Will executed on 30.10.1985 at Tis Hazari in presence of two attesting witnesses—Compliance recorded [Para 1.2].

Agnates’ SLP—Suppression of material facts—Article 136—CPC O.XXIII R.1—Litigants who withdrew a civil suit challenging the same Will (without liberty) and withdrew objections in probate cannot later maintain SLP; suppression of withdrawal disentitles discretionary relief—Costs of ₹1,00,000 each imposed; SLP dismissed on suppression and locus [Paras 9–13].

Estoppel—Probate Objections Withdrawn—No “blowing hot and cold”—Where objections to probate and independent suit are withdrawn, petitioners estopped from re-agitating validity—High Court’s grant of probate stands; consequential steps to follow [Paras 10–14].

Decision—SLP (C) Nos. 14721–14723/2024 dismissed on ground of locus of State; SLP (Civil) Diary No. 30645/2023 dismissed for suppression and lack of locus—Costs imposed ₹1,00,000 each on agnate-petitioners; probate to proceed per law [Final Paras].

NGT – Appeal under Section 22 NGT Act – Environmental Compensation of ₹18 Crore Imposed on Sugar Mill – Orders Set Aside – Appellant challenged NGT orders dated 15.02.2022 and 16.09.2022 which imposed 2% of annual turnover as environmental compensation based on a joint committee report alleging effluent discharge violations – Held: NGT acted in violation of Sections 21–22 of the Water Act and principles of natural justice under Section 19 NGT Act by not impleading or hearing the appellant and by relying solely on a committee report – Orders declared illegal and quashed; UPPCB given liberty to act in accordance with law – Appeals Allowed [Paras 19, 30-34].

Evidence – Sampling of Trade Effluent – Sections 21–22, Water Act – Admissibility – The statutory protocol (notice to occupier/agent, splitting, sealing, dual-lab analysis, delivery of reports) is mandatory; results are inadmissible unless the procedure is followed – NGT’s reliance on committee findings absent compliance vitiates the basis for compensation [Paras 10.5–10.9, 30-33].

Role of Expert/Joint Committees – Adjudicatory Function vs. Fact-Finding – Committees appointed by tribunals assist in fact-finding but cannot substitute adjudication; their reports must be subject to party participation and judicial determination – NGT erred in basing liability solely on committee recommendations without hearing the affected party [Paras 27, 31-33].

Audi Alteram Partem – Opportunity to be Heard – Section 19 NGT Act – Even in suo motu or preventive environmental jurisdiction, affected parties must be heard before adverse directions – Failure to implead and hear the appellant rendered the proceedings non-est [Paras 19(i)-(ix), 31-33].

Relief and Liberty – Appeals Allowed – Consequential Directions – Setting aside of NGT orders does not preclude lawful regulatory action; UPPCB is at liberty to inspect and take remedial steps in accordance with the Water Act and principles of natural justice [Paras 33-34].