Criminal Law - Victim Appeal Right – Substitution of Legal Heir – Proviso to Section 372 CrPC – Substantive Right Recognised – The son of deceased appellant (an injured victim) sought to substitute himself to continue the appeal against acquittal – Held: Under Section 2(wa), legal heirs of victims are also recognised as victims – The right to “prefer an appeal” includes the right to prosecute it – The legal heir has standing to continue the appeal even if he was not an injured victim himself – Delay in filing substitution application condoned and appeal revived [Paras 1-3, 5.2, 9.3, 11].

Right of Victim – Distinction from Complainant – Appeal Maintainable Without Leave – Section 372 CrPC – Supreme Court Clarifies – Victim can file appeal against acquittal without following the rigours of Section 378(4) CrPC – Held: Proviso to Section 372 confers an independent and broader right to victims and their legal heirs to appeal against acquittals, convictions for lesser offences, or inadequate compensation – No special leave is required under Section 378 in such cases [Paras 5.3, 6, 7, 8.2].

Cryptic Judgment – High Court Failed to Analyze Evidence – Judgment Set Aside – The High Court allowed criminal appeals and acquitted accused without proper evaluation of evidence or reasoning – Held: As a first appellate court under Section 374(2) CrPC, the High Court must reappreciate entire evidence and record independent findings – Absence of such reasoning renders the judgment unsustainable – Judgment set aside and matter remanded [Paras 2, 6-10].

Remand – Opportunity to All Parties – Fair Trial Mandated – Supreme Court Remands Matter – Appeals restored before High Court for fresh adjudication with opportunity to appellant, State, and accused – High Court requested to dispose of matter expeditiously due to pendency since 1992 – Accused to remain on bail and execute fresh bonds before Sessions Court [Paras 13-17].

Constitutional Law – Disqualification of MLAs – Inaction by Speaker – Speaker failed to act on disqualification petitions for over seven months despite constitutional mandate under Tenth Schedule – Appellants (MLAs) filed writ petitions seeking time-bound directions – Single Judge directed Speaker to fix schedule of hearings – Division Bench set aside that order – Supreme Court held that Speaker acts as a Tribunal while adjudicating disqualification and is amenable to judicial review under Articles 136, 226, 227 – Quia Timet bar does not prevent courts from issuing directions ensuring timely disposal of petitions [Paras 1, 3.6, 3.8, 3.9, 3.12, 4–11, 25–36, 49–60, 75–96].

Constitutional Functionaries – Conduct of Speaker – Delay in initiating proceedings until Supreme Court proceedings were initiated – Notices issued by Speaker only after cases were filed/heard in Court – Supreme Court found Speaker had failed to act expeditiously, frustrating purpose of the Tenth Schedule – Parliament entrusted Speaker with role for swift justice, but repeated inaction across cases undermines this trust – Court questions whether legislative mechanism is still effective [Paras 91–94].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Court distinguished between interference with Speaker’s powers vs. judicial review in aid of constitutional objectives – Held that judicial review is permissible when Speaker fails to discharge duties under Tenth Schedule – Speaker does not enjoy immunity under Articles 122/212 when acting as tribunal – Failure to decide disqualification petitions can be reviewed and remedied [Paras 33–36, 81–84, 95–100].

Precedents – Applied Keisham Meghachandra Singh and Rajendra Singh Rana – Upheld view that Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a “reasonable period” – “Three months” held as reasonable outer limit unless exceptional circumstances exist – Refused respondents’ arguments relying on pending reference in S.A. Sampath Kumar as already addressed in later judgments [Paras 50–60, 77–79, 87–89].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Division Bench set aside – Speaker directed to decide pending disqualification petitions within three months – Any protraction by MLAs to be met with adverse inference by Speaker [Paras 101–102].

Criminal Law – Quashing – Section 419, 420, 467,468,471 of the IPC - Criminal Complaint – Allegation of Forged Will – Quashing Justified – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Appellants, daughters-in-law of the deceased, inherited estate via a will dated 23.12.1993 – Sale deed was executed by one son after the testator’s death – Complainant filed complaint under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC seven years after mutation and amid pending civil suit – Held: Allegations failed to disclose any offence – Proceedings amounted to harassment and were filed with mala fide intent – Complaint quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 3.1–3.11, 6.1, 8.1, 8.3–8.9, 9–10].

Civil Suit – Declaration & Injunction – Auction Purchase of Municipal Plot – High Court’s Reversal Set Aside – Appellant claimed ownership of plot No. 394 purchased in 1977 auction—Trial and first appellate courts decreed suit based on certified copies of auction records and adverse inference against municipal council for non-production of originals—High Court reversed, holding plaintiff failed to prove purchase—Held: Certified copies issued under Section 376 Karnataka Municipalities Act have same evidentiary value as originals; municipal body’s resolution cancelling registered sale certificate illegal—Non-production of records invited adverse inference—High Court’s finding perverse; trial court decree restored [Paras 26-34].

Family Law - Transfer Petition – Custody Proceedings – Welfare of Minor – Transfer Allowed – Petitioner-wife sought transfer of proceedings filed by husband under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act for custody of six-month-old child from Jalpaiguri to Dehradun – Court held that compelling the mother to travel with a breast-feeding child would result in grave hardship – Transfer granted in the interest of justice and welfare of the child [Paras 1, 7, 8].

Domestic Violence Allegations – Pending Criminal Proceedings – Relevant Factor – The petitioner had filed complaints against the respondent for harassment and dowry-related abuse – FIR registered under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act – Court took note of pendency of criminal case as relevant background while assessing motive and hardship in custody litigation [Paras 2, 3, 6].

Maintenance – Interim Maintenance Ordered – Conditional Right to Defend – Court directed Family Court, Dehradun to determine interim maintenance for the petitioner and child within one month – Respondent-husband permitted to contest custody petition only upon payment of arrears and monthly compliance – Non-payment to result in dismissal for non-prosecution [Paras 9, 10, 11].

Judicial Discretion – Power Under Article 142 – Transfer Jurisdiction – Court exercised its plenary powers to balance competing interests and ensure procedural justice – Directions issued to secure child’s welfare and prevent vexatious litigation – Petition allowed [Para 7–11].

Final Order – Transfer Petition Allowed – Proceedings titled “Magnanil Goswami v. Kajal Sharma” pending before District Judge, Jalpaiguri transferred to Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun – All interlocutory applications also disposed of [Paras 8, 12].

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of FIR – Protest Rally and Dharna – FIR Quashed – Appellants challenged the criminal proceedings initiated for participating in a peaceful student rally in 2019 without prior permission, during the election Model Code of Conduct – The FIR alleged public nuisance and obstruction under IPC and Police Act – The Court found no ingredients of the alleged offences were made out and quashed the FIR, chargesheet, and trial proceedings – Held: The appellants were exercising their fundamental right to protest and no case was made for continuing prosecution [Paras 1-6, 13-21].

Bhajan Lal Principles – Application to Section 482 CrPC – No Offence Made Out – FIR Quashed – The Court applied the Bhajan Lal guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – Held: Even if allegations are accepted as true, they do not disclose any offence – Quashing justified under sub-clauses (1), (2), and (3) of Para 102 of Bhajan Lal case [Paras 13, 20].

Fundamental Rights – Peaceful Protest – Public Assembly without Arms – No Criminal Liability – Prosecution Misconceived – The protest was peaceful and without arms – No material suggested undue influence at elections, obstruction of traffic, or public nuisance as defined under IPC or Police Act – Held: Participation in peaceful protests is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and (b); no offence made out [Paras 10, 14, 18].

Failure to Make Out Ingredients of Offence – Sections 290, 341, 171F IPC – Allegations Inadequate – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Court observed that FIR and chargesheet lacked essential ingredients for the alleged offences – No act of wrongful restraint, undue electoral influence, or nuisance was demonstrated – FIR and C.C. No.1015/2021 quashed [Paras 16-19].

High Court's Error – Refusal to Quash – Misapplication of Law – Set Aside – The High Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 CrPC despite lack of prima facie offence – Supreme Court found this erroneous and an abuse of process – Held: High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction to secure ends of justice [Para 19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – FIR, Chargesheet and Proceedings Quashed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and quashed FIR No.102/2019, Chargesheet dated 03.06.2020 and proceedings in C.C. No.1015/2021 pending before the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati – Held: Continuation of prosecution was neither expedient nor in the interest of justice [Para 21].

Criminal Law - Murder of Wife – Sole Testimony of Child Witness – Section 302 IPC – Conviction Upheld – The accused was convicted by the trial court for murdering his wife by inflicting head injuries—Case rested substantially on the testimony of his 9-year-old daughter (PW-3), an eyewitness who was sleeping beside the deceased—She saw her father covering the deceased with a bedsheet and forbidding her to see the body; the accused then absconded—Child witness’s testimony found natural, consistent, and corroborated by landlord (PW-1) and medical evidence—Bloodstains on accused’s shirt matched deceased’s blood group—Defence of false implication rejected—Held: Burden under Section 106 Evidence Act not discharged; conviction and life sentence affirmed—Appeal dismissed, bail cancelled, and accused directed to surrender [Paras 5-16].

Arbitration Law  – Statutory Forum vs Contractual Clause – Exclusive Jurisdiction of Statutory Tribunal Upheld – The appellant, a private tollway company, initiated arbitration under Clause 44.3.1 of a Concession Agreement invoking the 1996 Act and ICADR Rules, after withdrawing a reference before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal without liberty – The High Court quashed the arbitral proceedings, holding the dispute fell exclusively within the statutory regime of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 – Supreme Court upheld this view, holding that the contract was a ‘works contract’, the claims were ascertained, and the 1983 Act provided an overriding statutory mechanism barring recourse to arbitration under the 1996 Act – The Court allowed the appellant to seek revival of the earlier withdrawn petition before the Tribunal [Paras 1–3, 11–18].

Maintainability of Writ – Challenge by State Entity Against Private Party – Writ Held Maintainable – The Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of the writ petition filed by MPRDC under Article 226 challenging arbitration proceedings initiated by a private company – Held: Since the dispute involved the public function of road development and the legality of invoking arbitration despite a statutory dispute resolution mechanism, the writ involved a public law element and was maintainable [Paras 8-8.4].

Works Contract – Applicability of Statutory Arbitration Tribunal – Arbitration Clause in Concession Agreement Held Inoperative – The appellant sought arbitration under the 1996 Act as per Clause 44.3.1 of the Concession Agreement – Held: The Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the 1983 Act has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising out of works contracts involving the State – Private arbitration proceedings are non est in law [Paras 9–11.10].

Quantified Claims – Tribunal Jurisdiction Valid – Claims Held Ascertained – The appellant argued its claims were not “ascertained” and hence outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction – Held: The claims totaling Rs. 280.1566 crores were clearly quantified and therefore fall within the ambit of “dispute” under Section 2(1)(d) of the 1983 Act, even post-amendment [Paras 11.2–11.3].

Doctrine of Election – Parallel Proceedings Not Permissible – Appellant Estopped – The appellant initially approached the statutory Tribunal, later withdrew without liberty, and initiated private arbitration – Held: This conduct violates the doctrine of election and amounts to forum shopping; Clause 44.3.1 cannot override the 1983 Act [Paras 12–13.1].

Limitation and Estoppel – Withdrawal Without Liberty Bars Re-agitation – The appellant withdrew its petition without permission under Rule 53(2), attracting the bar under Rule 53(3)(b) – Held: The appellant is precluded from raising the same claims before any forum including ICADR – However, Court permitted recall of the withdrawal order for justice [Paras 17–17.1].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Arbitration Under 1996 Act Quashed – Madhya Pradesh Tribunal Retains Exclusive Jurisdiction – The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order quashing arbitration initiated under the 1996 Act – Directed the appellant to apply for revival of Reference Petition No. 61 of 2018 before the Tribunal, to be considered and decided within four months [Paras 16–18].

Criminal Law - Murder  – Appeal Against Acquittal – Sections 302 & 449 IPC – Dying Declaration Found Unreliable – The State challenged the High Court’s reversal of the trial court’s conviction for murder and house trespass – The trial court had disbelieved the prosecution’s key eyewitness and convicted on the basis of dying declaration – High Court found serious doubts about the victim’s ability to give a coherent statement due to 100% burns, absence of measurable pulse or blood pressure, and feeble, unclear speech – Presence of relatives influencing the statement, discrepancies in timing, and suppression of earlier report further weakened prosecution – Held: Supreme Court upheld acquittal as findings were not perverse, contradictions were material, and alternative views were possible; no ground to interfere in acquittal [Paras 9-22].