Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Blanket Protection from Arrest – High Court, while refusing to quash FIR under Article 226, granted protection from arrest till filing of charge sheet – Held: Self-contradictory and impermissible – Once FIR is not quashed, High Court cannot mechanically grant anticipatory-bail-like protection in writ jurisdiction – Such directions prejudice investigation and violate settled law [Paras 5–7].

Article 226 – Scope – High Court’s power to grant pre-arrest protection is exceptional and must be exercised sparingly – Cannot be used to bypass statutory scheme of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC – Persons seeking protection must approach Sessions Court first – Blanket orders of “no arrest/no coercive steps” are wholly impermissible, as reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure [Paras 7–7.1].

Investigation – Judicial Interference – Directions restraining arrest during entire investigation, despite not quashing FIR, amount to unjustified interference – No rationale in protecting accused while simultaneously directing expeditious investigation – Orders undermine fairness and efficacy of investigation [Paras 5–6].

Remand – Fresh Consideration – Supreme Court sets aside High Court orders dated 16.06.2025 and 15.07.2025 – Matters remitted to High Court to reconsider quashing petitions on merits, uninfluenced by previous observations – Interim protection to continue until petitions are decided, to avoid prejudice [Paras 8–11].

Land Acquisition – Compensation under National Highways Act – Applicability of First Schedule of 2013 Act – NHAI sought fresh clarification on applicability of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Court held that its earlier clarification dated 23.09.2022 already conclusively applied sub-clause 4.6(iii)(b) of 2017 Guidelines to the landowners – No further clarification warranted; parties must abide by previous orders [Paras 5–6].

Scope of Clarification – When Prior Clarification Already Provided – Court reiterates that its 23.09.2022 order had unambiguously held that where award under Section 3G was passed before 01.01.2015 but amount was deposited after 01.01.2015, compensation must align with First Schedule of 2013 Act – Present application unnecessary and not maintainable [Paras 5–6].

Interpretation of 2017 Guidelines – Clause 4.6(iii) – Three sub-clauses cover distinct situations – They are not cumulative – Case of landowners squarely fell under sub-clause (b) (award issued earlier; full amount deposited later) – NHAI’s attempt to reopen settled clarification rejected [Para 5].

Binding Effect of Tarsem Singh Judgment – Benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), 28 of the Land Acquisition Act extended to NH acquisitions – Section 3J declared unconstitutional to that extent – Earlier Supreme Court orders already directed statutory benefits to be given – No further adjudicatory exercise required [Para 5].

Decision: Miscellaneous Application dismissed – No further clarification required – Parties to strictly abide by Supreme Court’s earlier order dated 23.09.2022 – No costs [Paras 6–7].

Arbitration Law – Section 11(6) – Judicial Review – High Court, having appointed arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the A&C Act, later reviewed and dismissed the same petition on ground of invalidity of Clause 25 – Held: Such review impermissible – Section 11(6) does not confer any revisional or appellate power to re-adjudicate issues already settled – High Court became functus officio after appointment – Review jurisdiction wrongly invoked to revisit settled interpretation [Paras 11.1–11.15]

Arbitration Agreement – Existence and Validity – Clause 25 of contract between parties provided for dispute resolution through arbitration with a specific appointment procedure – Held: Clause 25 satisfied the requirements of Section 7 of the A&C Act – Arbitration agreement valid and binding – Prior arbitration between same parties under same clause further established existence of valid arbitration mechanism – Subsequent dispute over extended period arbitrable under same clause [Paras 12.1–12.8, 12.17]

Unilateral Appointment Clause – Validity and Severability – Clause 25 vested appointment power solely in Managing Director and stated arbitration would not proceed if appointment not made – Held: Such unilateral clause violates principles of neutrality, equality and Article 14 – Portion of clause disabling arbitration to be severed – Doctrine of severability invoked – Core arbitration agreement preserved, appointment process corrected under Section 11(6) [Paras 12.9–12.16]

Section 29A Extension – Waiver by Conduct – Respondents joined in multiple applications under Section 29A to extend mandate of arbitrator – Held: Though Section 12(5) requires express post-dispute written waiver, participation and joint applications under Section 29A amount to waiver under Section 4 – Respondents estopped from challenging arbitrator’s mandate after years of participation [Paras 13.1–13.13]

Precedential Value – Dismissal of SLP – High Court relied on earlier case (Kashish Developers) said to be “affirmed” by SC due to SLP dismissal – Held: Dismissal of SLP without reasons does not amount to law declared under Article 141 – Does not bind other benches – Reliance on such dismissal misplaced – Precedent value confined to that case alone [Paras 14–14.3]

Public Contracts – Model Litigant Conduct – Respondent PSU delayed appointment, resisted arbitration after years of participation – Held: Conduct unjustified – State entities must act fairly and promptly – Warning issued to Managing Director – Caution against future recurrence of administrative apathy in contractual obligations [Paras 19–19.2]

Relief – Appeal Allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – High Court directed to appoint substitute arbitrator within two weeks – Proceedings to resume from stage at which they were interrupted – De novo hearing avoided in interest of efficiency and fairness [Paras 18, 20]

Criminal Law – Bail – Parity – Scope and Limit – Grant of bail to accused Rajveer on the sole ground of parity with co-accused Suresh Pal – High Court failed to assess role, gravity, or impact of offence – Supreme Court reiterates that parity must be grounded in similarity of role, not just involvement in same offence – Held: Grant of bail solely on parity is erroneous [Paras 6–12, 14–15].

Criminal Law – Role-Based Bail Analysis – Appellant alleged that Rajveer instigated shooting of deceased Sonveer – FIR disclosed active participation and instigation – Role of Rajveer distinct from Suresh Pal, who was merely part of armed group – Held: No basis for equating both on parity – Orders granting bail quashed [Paras 3, 15].

Bail Jurisprudence – Requirements for Grant – Bail order must reflect judicial application of mind – Parity cannot override factors like role, gravity, antecedents, and potential to influence trial – High Court erred in granting bail without recording reasons or distinguishing roles – Held: Orders bereft of reasoning violate principles of natural justice [Paras 10–13, 20].

Judicial Discipline – Precedents on Parity – Supreme Court surveys decisions from various High Courts and apex court confirming that parity is not an absolute ground for bail – Must be examined with full context, role, and factual similarity – Uniform view against mechanical grant of bail on parity alone [Paras 13.1–13.7].

Criminal Law – Grant of Bail to Prince – Co-accused Prince granted bail by High Court without assigning reasons – No analysis of role, gravity, or applicability of cited precedents – Held: Such non-speaking order violates settled principles – Matter remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 17–20].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Bail granted to accused Rajveer and Prince set aside – Rajveer directed to surrender within two weeks – Matter of Prince remanded to High Court for reconsideration as per law.

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Cancellation of Bail – Respondent No. 1 (husband) accused of poisoning wife within four months of marriage after dowry harassment – Post-mortem showed ante-mortem abrasion and FSL confirmed aluminium phosphide poisoning – Dying declaration made to family members disclosed forcible administration of toxic substance – Held: High Court erred in granting bail without considering statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act and gravity of offence – Bail order found to be perverse and legally unsustainable – Annulled by Supreme Court [Paras 1, 5–6, 12–17, 22–24].

Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act – Applicability – Marriage took place on 22.02.2023, death occurred on 05.06.2023 – Evidence indicated cruelty and harassment soon before death – Prosecution’s burden to establish proximity and causal link satisfied – Statutory presumption of dowry death against accused attracted – High Court failed to apply mandatory presumption under Section 113B – Interference justified [Paras 17–20].

Bail Jurisprudence – Distinction between Grant and Cancellation – Annulment permissible where bail granted ignoring material facts or settled principles – Appellate court may interfere even without post-bail misconduct – Law laid down in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, Puran v. Rambilas and Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. followed – Personal liberty cannot override societal interest in serious offences like dowry death [Paras 11, 18].

Maintainability – Complainant’s Right to Challenge Bail – Appellant (father of deceased) held to have locus standi – Cited precedents R. Rathinam v. State and Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna Jaiswal – Victim’s family may seek cancellation of bail even in absence of state appeal – Appeal maintainable [Paras 10–10.3].

Dowry Death – Societal Impact – Observations on the rising menace of dowry-related violence – Court noted misuse of marriage as a transactional arrangement and emphasized deterrent response to such gender-based offences – Judiciary cannot remain passive or lenient in face of institutional violence against women [Paras 25–25.3].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Bail granted to Respondent No. 1 by High Court cancelled – Respondent No. 1 directed to surrender forthwith – Trial to proceed independently and uninfluenced by this judgment.

Civil Law - Order 38 Civil Procedure Code (CPC) – Attachment Before Judgment – Fraudulent Transfer – Registered sale deed executed prior to institution of suit – Held: Attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC cannot extend to property already transferred before the suit – Attachment is a protective mechanism, not a tool to defeat completed transactions – Claim petition under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 CPC is maintainable in such circumstances – Courts below erred in treating the attachment proceeding as a trial under Section 53 of the T.P. Act [Paras 11.1, 13, 20(a)-(d), 21]

Transfer of Property – Section 53 T.P. Act – Burden of Proving Fraud – The burden to prove fraudulent intent lies on the party alleging fraud – Mere suspicion, partial cash payments or prior dealings do not suffice – Bona fide purchaser for consideration is protected under the proviso to Section 53 – Sale deed supported by prior agreement, registered documentation, and delivery of possession – No material to prove collusion or intent to defraud [Paras 14-16]

Equitable Principles – Prior Agreement to Sell – Rights of Attaching Creditor – Agreement dated 10.05.2002 followed by registered sale deed on 28.06.2004 – Property no longer vested in judgment debtor at time of suit – Attachment cannot override contractual obligations created by prior agreement – Consideration partly adjusted against existing debts valid under Section 25 of the Contract Act [Paras 16-17]

Adjudicatory Limits – Order XXXVIII Rule 8 and Order XXI Rule 58 CPC – Scope – Proceedings under Rule 8 CPC incorporate Rule 58 of Order XXI – These are procedural and intended to safeguard third-party rights – Cannot substitute a substantive adjudication under Section 53 T.P. Act – Courts below erred in exceeding this scope by declaring the transfer fraudulent in claim proceedings [Paras 11.2, 13, 20(d)]

Binding Precedents – Applicability – Supreme Court reiterated principles from Hamda Ammal v. Avadiappa Pathar, Vannarakkal Kallalathil Sreedharan v. Chandramaath Balakrishnan, and Rajender Singh v. Ramdhar Singh – Held: Attachment cannot prevail over a prior registered sale deed – Title of bona fide purchaser not affected by post-transfer attachment [Paras 17-19]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Sale deed dated 28.06.2004 declared valid – Attachment before judgment held inapplicable – Orders of trial court and High Court set aside – Claim petition under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 CPC allowed

Negotiable Instruments – Jurisdiction – Territorial jurisdiction under Section 142(2)(a) NI Act – Complaint under Section 138 is triable only in court where payee maintains the account – Explanation to Section 142(2)(a) creates legal fiction deeming cheque delivered at any branch as delivered at home branch – Held: Jurisdiction cannot be fixed at the place of cheque deposit for collection if different from payee’s bank branch where account is maintained – Ensures uniformity and clarity in trial jurisdiction post-amendment [Paras 54-58, 76]

Interpretation of Statute – Explanation to Section 142(2)(a) – Legal fiction – Deeming provision clarifies that delivery for collection at any bank branch shall be deemed delivery to payee’s home branch – Prevents forum shopping – Held: Interpretation must avoid circumvention of jurisdictional safeguards and uphold purpose of statutory reform under 2015 amendment [Paras 68-70, 73]

Precedent – Yogesh Upadhyay v. Atlanta Ltd. – Overruled – Yogesh Upadhyay interpreted Section 142(2)(a) to prioritise the place of cheque deposit – Court held such interpretation overlooks the Explanation and statutory fiction – Declared per incuriam – Clarified that delivery for collection is legally deemed to occur at home branch, not place of physical deposit – Reaffirmed Bridgestone India and distinguished reasoning in Sendhur Agro Industries [Paras 65, 67, 75]

Transfer of Pending Case – Section 145(2) NI Act – Complaint was originally filed before MM, Kolkata – Proceedings had reached stage of recording complainant's evidence before return of complaint for lack of jurisdiction post-amendment – Held: In line with Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod, complaints which reached evidence stage prior to amendment must remain with existing court to avoid prejudice – Re-transfer to MM, Kolkata directed to resume from pre-return stage [Paras 77-80]

Statutory Interpretation – Harmonious construction – Explanation must clarify, not override or distort main provision – Court emphasised that Section 142(2)(a) must be interpreted as per legislative purpose to provide specific jurisdiction and prevent jurisdictional misuse – Held: Statement of Objects and Reasons cannot override plain language of Explanation – Interpretation in Yogesh Upadhyay disregards Explanation and allows jurisdictional manipulation [Para 70(i)-(ii)]

Jurisdiction Post-Amendment – Conflict between pre-amendment judgments and amended law resolved – Court explained that 2015 Amendment intended to overcome accused-centric interpretation in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod – However, intention was not to reintroduce misuse potential under Bhaskaran – Held: Legislative design balances convenience of payee with fairness to accused through deeming fiction [Paras 39, 56-58, 70]

Doctrine of Per Incuriam – Applied to Yogesh Upadhyay – Judgment declared per incuriam for failing to consider binding Explanation to Section 142(2)(a) and misreading legislative intent – Clarified that subsequent courts are not bound by decisions that overlook express statutory provisions [Paras 75, 68]

Decision: Petition allowed – Complaint and all related proceedings under Section 138 NI Act transferred back to Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata – Proceedings to resume from stage prior to return order dated 28.07.2016 – All connected transfer petitions also disposed of accordingly.

Insolvency Law – IBC - Moratorium under Section 14 – Scope – Corporate debtor (developer) failed to commence or complete redevelopment project despite multiple extensions – Society terminated the Development Agreement and executed new agreement with another developer prior to initiation of second CIRP – Held: Section 14 does not protect development rights already terminated before CIRP – Such terminated contractual rights do not constitute “assets” under IBC [Paras 16.4–16.12, 21(ii)]

Termination of Development Agreement – Legality – Agreement dated 16.10.2005 and Supplementary Agreements of 2005 and 2014 terminated by society citing prolonged defaults in performance, including failure to pay rent, non-demolition and non-construction – Termination effected by notices in 2019 and 2021 – Held: Termination was lawful, not related to insolvency, and fell outside NCLT jurisdiction under Section 60(5)(c) – IBC cannot protect commercial indolence in projects of public welfare [Paras 15–15.14, 21(i)]

Urban Redevelopment – Nature of Rights – Developer under slum redevelopment does not acquire possessory or proprietary interest unless stipulated – Held: Appellant was a mere licensee, had no physical possession – Development rights were conditional and executory – Not enforceable assets under Section 3(27) IBC – Moratorium under Section 14(1)(d) not attracted [Paras 15.10–15.13, 16.6–16.9]

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability during CIRP – High Court passed directions under Article 226 to statutory authorities to process redevelopment approvals for new developer – Held: Constitutional courts’ jurisdiction not ousted by IBC – Public law remedies can coexist with CIRP where no interference in NCLT domain – High Court rightly ensured statutory duties were discharged [Paras 17.1–17.8, 21(iii)]

Natural Justice – Allegation of Procedural Violation – Appellants alleged denial of fair opportunity before High Court – Held: Appellants were represented by counsel, no adjournment sought, no prejudice shown – Writ petition did not seek direct relief against appellants – Directions were procedural and administrative – No breach of audi alteram partem rule [Paras 18–18.10, 21(iv)]

Redevelopment and Social Welfare – Balancing of Equities – Developer’s delay and inaction caused hardship to lower-income society members awaiting rehabilitation – Held: IBC moratorium cannot be used to frustrate urban renewal or delay housing projects – Social welfare of citizens must prevail over defunct contractual claims – Constitutional promise of dignified housing must be honoured [Paras 23–23.3]

Precedents – Gujarat Urja, TCS Ltd., Embassy Property, Rajendra Bhutta – Considered – Held: Moratorium protects only existing, subsisting and enforceable rights – NCLT jurisdiction confined to cases where contract is central to corporate survival and termination is linked to insolvency – In present case, contract was not central and was terminated for cause [Paras 15.5–15.8, 16.6–16.9, 17.2]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Termination of developer agreement upheld – Development rights not protected under IBC – High Court’s direction to authorities affirmed – Redevelopment to proceed as per directions – Appellants at liberty to pursue remedies for expenditure claims.

Criminal Law – Murder Trial – Benefit of Doubt – Appellants convicted for murder based on statements of informant (PW-3) and deceased’s sisters (PW-1 and PW-2) alleging oral dying declaration – First information report dated 12 May 1990 (Fardbeyan) did not name the accused – Informant later filed embellished report naming appellants due to previous enmity over land acquisition employment – Prosecution failed to justify contradiction or explain delay in naming accused – Held: Fardbeyan was the true FIR and subsequent statement could not override it – Names of accused introduced belatedly – creates serious doubt [Paras 5-6, 24-35].

Criminal Procedure – Examination under Section 313 CrPC – Violation – Trial Court recorded only three generic questions – High Court failed to address this defect – Supreme Court held that the defective recording caused serious prejudice to the accused – omission to put specific incriminating circumstances undermines a fair trial – Remand not ordered due to long passage of time – Held: Trial vitiated due to violation of principles under Section 313 CrPC [Paras 18-23].

Evidence – Non-examination of Investigating Officer – Adverse Inference – Investigating Officer (ASI R. Paswan) recorded both FIRs but was not examined without explanation – Supreme Court held this withholding was deliberate – His testimony was crucial to explain discrepancies – Held: Adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution [Paras 12, 25-30].

Evidence – Witness Credibility – Informant’s testimony inconsistent with FIR and Section 164 CrPC statements – Multiple improvements including alleged oral dying declaration introduced at different stages – Deceased’s sisters examined after 1.5 months and failed to inspire confidence – Medical evidence did not support ability of deceased to make any dying declaration – Held: Prosecution evidence wholly unreliable and inconsistent [Paras 30-45].

Defence Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Defence examined two eyewitnesses (DW-1 and DW-2) named in prosecution’s own report – They did not implicate appellants and supported a different version – Courts below failed to consider their testimonies – Held: Defence version plausible – Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 47-51].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – To be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case [Paras 52-53].