Criminal Law - Sections 3(1)(viii), 3(1)(ix), and 3(2)(vii) of the SC/ST Act – Quashing of Proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – High Court Order Upheld – Appellant alleged mala fide prosecution by public officials for opposing wrongful land allotment – High Court found no evidence of caste-based discrimination or mala fide intention – Held: The initiation of proceedings under the SC/ST Act lacked legal foundation – Quashing Upheld [Paras 1-4, 19-22].

Mala Fide Allegation – Intra-Caste Dispute – No Offence Attracted under SC/ST Act – Dispute involved two Scheduled Caste groups – Allegations failed to show targeting of appellant solely for caste identity – Held: Prosecution does not satisfy the essential ingredients of offences under the SC/ST Act – Criminal complaint rightly quashed [Paras 16, 21-22].

Scope of Section 482 CrPC – High Court Jurisdiction Properly Exercised – Allegations were vague, delayed, and not supported by prima facie evidence – Held: High Court correctly exercised inherent powers to prevent abuse of legal process – Interference by Supreme Court unwarranted [Paras 12, 25].

False Prosecution – Safeguards Against Abuse of SC/ST Act – Court referred to precedents warning against misuse of the Act for settling personal scores – Held: Courts must intervene where allegations do not reveal caste-based intent or are filed with oblique motives – False implication under SC/ST Act cannot be permitted [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court’s Quashing of Proceedings Upheld – Allegations found baseless and unsupported by evidence – No interference warranted by Supreme Court – All pending applications also disposed [Paras 25-27].

Land Acquisition - Fraud on Court – Suppression of Material Facts – Exclusive Compensation Awarded – Order Set Aside – Reddy was found to have manipulated judicial processes by suppressing prior litigation and asserting contradictory claims to secure compensation – Held: The High Court order and subsequent judgment in Reddy Veerana (2022) were vitiated by fraud and declared nullities – Judicial orders obtained by deceit cannot be allowed to stand [Paras 30-60, 138-139].

Maintainability – Writ Petition under Article 32 – No Violation of Fundamental Rights – Dismissed – The Supreme Court held that a loosely drafted writ petition without clear allegations of fundamental rights violation under Article 32 is not maintainable – Vishnu’s property rights fell under Article 300A and could have been agitated under Article 226 – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 66-80].

Doctrine of Merger – Exception in Case of Fraud – Civil Appeal Maintainable – The impugned High Court order had allegedly merged with the Supreme Court judgment in Reddy Veerana – However, the Court held that fraud nullifies the merger doctrine – Fraud being an exception, the appeal was maintainable and allowed [Paras 89-124].

Procedural Law – Inherent Powers of Supreme Court – Relief Granted – Court reiterated that procedural rules are handmaid of justice – Registry’s refusal to register review petition on technical grounds overridden – Petition allowed to be regularised upon curing defects [Paras 125-131, 137].

Simultaneous Proceedings – Appeal and Review – No Bar – Vishnu’s civil appeal and review petition targeted distinct but interlinked orders – Court held there was no legal prohibition since the appeal and review addressed different aspects of the fraudulently obtained judgments [Paras 132-134].

Forum Shopping – Allegation Rejected – Court held that initiating multiple proceedings in different fora did not constitute forum shopping where the litigant was responding to evolving judicial obstacles and procedural constraints – Petition was a legitimate response to fraud [Paras 141-143].

Relief – Impugned and Related Orders Set Aside – Matter Remanded – The impugned High Court order dated 28/10/2021 and the Supreme Court judgment in Reddy Veerana (2022) were both recalled – The matter remanded to the High Court with directions to implead all co-owners and redetermine compensation – All pending proceedings to be brought to logical conclusion [Paras 144-146].

Criminal Law - Sections 342 and 376 IPC - Conviction for Rape and Wrongful Confinement – Delay in FIR – Explanation Satisfactory – Conviction Upheld – FIR lodged after 20 hours due to young age of victim and long distance to police station – Victim’s statement consistent and corroborated by medical and documentary evidence – Held: Delay not fatal – Conviction under Sections 342 and 376 IPC sustained [Paras 1-4, 7-8].

Hostile Witness – Not Material – Victim’s Testimony Corroborated – Witness who turned hostile was not an eyewitness – Court found no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix – Medical findings and clothing further substantiated the offence – Held: Hostile testimony immaterial where direct evidence is credible [Paras 8-9].

Prosecutrix’s Sole Testimony – Sufficient for Conviction – Corroboration Not Mandatory – Court reiterated settled law that uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix can suffice for conviction if credible – Supported by cases including Mohd. Imran Khan, Phool Singh, and Ganesan – Held: Conviction can rest solely on victim’s trustworthy testimony [Para 10].

Plea of Juvenility – Raised for First Time Before Supreme Court – Maintainable – Appellant asserted he was 16 years, 2 months, and 3 days on date of offence – Court directed judicial inquiry – Held: Plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage including post-conviction – Not barred by delay or procedural stage [Paras 5-6, 12-13, 15].

Juvenile Justice Act – Applicability Confirmed – Sentence Set Aside – Age proven by school records and confirmed by inquiry – Held: 2000 Act and 2007 Rules applicable even if person is no longer a juvenile during proceedings – Sentence imposed by Trial Court and upheld by High Court set aside accordingly [Paras 14-16].

Decision – Conviction Maintained – Sentence Set Aside – Matter Referred to Juvenile Justice Board – Appellant directed to appear before Board for proceedings under Sections 15 and 16 of the 2000 Act – Appeal disposed – Pending applications also disposed [Paras 16-19].

Criminal Law - Section 193, 406, 418, 420, 423, 468, 469 of IPC - Criminal Complaint – Second Quashing Petition – Not Maintainable – Review Impermissible – The High Court allowed a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, despite an earlier petition on identical grounds having been dismissed – Held: Raising previously available pleas in a second petition constitutes a review which is barred under Section 362 CrPC – High Court exceeded jurisdiction in entertaining the subsequent petition [Paras 11-14].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Limits Under Section 482 CrPC – Bar of Section 362 CrPC Applies – The High Court cannot invoke Section 482 to do what is expressly prohibited under CrPC – Held: Inherent powers cannot be exercised to override express statutory bar – Review of earlier final order not permissible through second petition under Section 482 [Paras 13-15].

Change in Circumstances – Mandatory for Maintainability of Second Petition – No New Grounds Raised – Accused failed to show any change in circumstances or fresh cause – Held: Entertainment of successive quashing petition without new grounds amounts to abuse of process – High Court’s order quashing proceedings unjustified [Paras 12, 14, 16].

Quashing of Complaint – Order Set Aside – Criminal Proceedings Restored – The High Court’s second order dated 13.09.2022 quashing Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 found to be legally unsustainable – Held: Complaint restored before Trial Magistrate – All defences open to accused at appropriate stage [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s Order Set Aside – Complaint Restored – The appeal succeeds – Complaint proceedings reinstated before Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai – Pending applications also disposed [Paras 17-20].

Education Law - Admission and Eligibility – Change in Admission Criteria – Unclear Prospectus and Addendums – Appellant applied under the 2020 Prospectus and was granted provisional admission in M.Sc. Environmental Management based on merit – Subsequent addendums excluded private university graduates from eligibility, resulting in her candidature being rejected – Held: Eligibility criteria was not clearly spelt out initially, and addendums created confusion warranting judicial intervention [Paras 2-9, 21-22].

Educational Rights – Degree Cancellation – Article 142 Invoked – After completing the full course with good academic performance and fulfilling all formal requirements including attendance and examinations, the appellant was awarded the degree which was later withdrawn by the university – Held: Degree withdrawal unjust after two years of valid study – Exercise of powers under Article 142 warranted to restore justice [Paras 14-26].

University Accountability – Duty to Ensure Clarity – Prospectus Terms and Delayed Addendums – Respondent University’s ambiguity and delayed amendments caused confusion in eligibility – Appellant’s rejection should have occurred at the initial stage if criteria had been clear – Held: Universities must exercise diligence in declaring eligibility criteria in time to prevent harm to students [Paras 15-17, 22].

Final Relief – Degree to be Restored – High Court Judgments Set Aside – Supreme Court set aside both the single judge and Division Bench judgments of the Himachal Pradesh High Court and ordered that the postgraduate degree conferred on 04.05.2023 be upheld – Cancellation order dated 05.08.2023 declared otiose [Paras 26-28].

Matrimonial Law - Transfer Petitions – Matrimonial Disputes – Amicable Settlement – All proceedings quashed – Multiple litigations were pending between the parties in various courts, including criminal and civil matters arising from matrimonial discord – Held: The Court exercised its power under Article 142 to quash all proceedings including FIRs, complaints, revisions, and petitions to bring an end to the litigation and restore peace between families [Paras 1-4, 11-14, 25-26].

Child Custody – Supervised Visitation – Welfare of the Minor – Custody of the 8-year-old daughter was awarded to the mother with monthly supervised visitation rights granted to the father and his family – Provisions were made for vacation sharing and future conflict resolution through designated mediators from both parties [Para 8].

Maintenance and Alimony – Voluntary Waiver – Previous Maintenance Order Quashed – The wife waived all claims to present and future alimony or maintenance and undertook to bear all expenses for the daughter – In light of this, the maintenance order of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month passed by the Allahabad High Court was quashed [Paras 9-10].

Property Transfer – Conditional Compliance – Transfer of Disputed Land – The wife’s mother was directed to gift specified agricultural land in Aligarh to the husband on an ‘as is where is’ basis – The husband to bear all future litigation and transfer-related expenses – Complete documents to be handed over within stipulated time [Para 17].

Social Conduct – Undertaking of Non-Interference – Apology Mandated – Both spouses agreed not to interfere in each other’s personal or professional lives and to refrain from using their positions to cause harm – Wife directed to publish an unconditional apology in national dailies and on social media as a step toward closure – Said apology shall not be construed as admission of liability and cannot be used to her prejudice [Paras 15, 19-21].

Article 142 – Divorce Decree – Finality to Disputes – Marriage dissolved by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution – All existing and future related litigations barred – Breach of settlement terms to amount to contempt – Divorce decree to be drawn accordingly [Para 25].

Service Law – Pension Entitlement – Resignation vs. Voluntary Retirement – Regulation 22 – Pension Denied - Resigned bank employee with over 35 years of service sought pension benefits under 1995 Pension Regulations – Supreme Court held resignation and voluntary retirement are distinct service termination modes – Regulation 22 lawfully excludes pension benefits upon resignation – Held: Employee who resigned cannot claim pension – No violation of Article 14 found [Paras 4.10, 47-53, 59].

Pension Scheme – Judicial Review of Policy – Direction to Amend Regulation – Impermissible – High Court directed Bank’s Board to consider amending Regulation 22 to allow pension to resigned employees – Supreme Court ruled such direction is tantamount to mandating legislation and exceeded judicial bounds – Held: Courts cannot compel executive action in policy framing – Directions (B to D) of High Court set aside [Paras 66-68].

Service Jurisprudence – Beneficial Interpretation – Article 142 – Resignation Due to Mental Depression – Relief Granted - Despite holding resignation disentitles pension, Court exercised Article 142 to grant equitable relief considering mental health and 35+ years of unblemished service – Held: Respondent allowed to opt under 2024 Bipartite Settlement or receive Rs. 5,00,000 as ex gratia if ineligible or unable to refund PF with interest [Paras 71-73].

Precedents – Shree Lal Meena Binding – Other Contradictory Decisions Disapproved – Earlier rulings such as Sheelkumar Jain and Asger Ibrahim Amin disapproved by larger bench in Shree Lal Meena – Conceptual clarity affirmed: resignation entails forfeiture of service unlike voluntary retirement – Reliefs under resignation cannot be extended based solely on length of service [Paras 43-47].

Final Decision – High Court Judgment Modified – Division Bench’s direction (A) setting aside Single Judge's order upheld – Remaining directions (B to D) quashed – Connected appeal dismissed – Lead appeal partly allowed with relief under Article 142 extended as exceptional case [Paras 65-74].

Criminal Law - Murder  –Section 302 & 34 of the  IPC – Acquittal Ordered – The Trial Court and High Court had convicted the appellants based solely on the testimony of the deceased’s wife and son – Supreme Court found improbabilities in their presence at the scene, contradictions with the medical evidence, and no corroboration from other witnesses – Held: Conviction unsustainable due to serious doubts in prosecution story – Appeals allowed and appellants acquitted [Paras 1-2, 6-13, 27-34].

Credibility of Interested Witnesses – Eyewitness Testimony Scrutinized – The prosecution relied exclusively on the deceased’s close relatives as witnesses – Their account of reaching the crime scene 16 km away on a bicycle within 30 minutes was found improbable – Held: Interested testimony must be subjected to greater scrutiny – Not safe to convict without corroboration from independent witnesses [Paras 22-27].

Failure of Prosecution – Hostile Witnesses – Doubts in Medical and Ocular Evidence – All independent eyewitnesses including TASMAC shop staff turned hostile – Medical report indicated attack by multiple persons, inconsistent with prosecution claim of two assailants – Held: Glaring omissions and improbabilities raised serious doubts – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 30-32].

Benefit of Doubt – Improbability in Presence – No Immediate Reporting to Police – Conduct of eyewitnesses found unnatural – Travelled 16 km back home instead of informing nearby police station – Held: Circumstances raise significant doubt about presence of witnesses at crime scene – Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 28-29].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Appellants Acquitted – The Supreme Court quashed the convictions passed by the Madras High Court and Trial Court – Ordered immediate release of both accused unless required in any other matter [Para 34].

Custodial Torture – Illegal Detention – Registration of FIR Directed – Investigation Transferred to CBI – Counter FIR Quashed – ₹50 Lakhs Compensation Awarded – In a case involving shocking custodial torture of a serving police constable, including mutilation of genitalia during illegal detention, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s judgment refusing to register FIR or transfer investigation – Held: In view of grave injuries, fabricated counter FIR, and institutional bias, FIR to be mandatorily registered, investigation transferred to CBI, malicious counter FIR quashed, and interim compensation of ₹50,00,000 awarded to the victim for violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 1-38].

Mandatory FIR Registration – Lalita Kumari Principle – Refusal to Register FIR Invalid – The Court held that once cognizable offences such as grievous custodial torture are disclosed, FIR registration is mandatory and cannot be circumvented by ordering a preliminary inquiry – Held: High Court erred in directing inquiry by interested police officers; direction issued for immediate registration of FIR and independent investigation [Paras 10-14].

Independent Investigation – Conflict of Interest – CBI Investigation Ordered – Local police involved in the offence cannot be entrusted with investigation – Held: In cases of custodial torture implicating local police, transfer to CBI is required to ensure independence, credibility, and fair inquiry under Article 21 [Paras 15-23].

Quashing of Counter FIR – Abuse of Process – Counter FIR Quashed – FIR registered against the victim under Section 309 IPC held to be malicious and part of an institutional cover-up – Held: Counter FIR lacked credibility and was quashed under Bhajan Lal principles as an abuse of criminal justice process [Paras 28-33].

Compensation for Violation of Fundamental Rights – Interim Compensation Granted – Considering egregious violation of Article 21, gross custodial torture, and systemic apathy, Supreme Court granted ₹50 lakhs interim compensation to the appellant – Held: Compensation recoverable from erring officials post CBI probe, without prejudice to further civil remedies [Paras 34-37].

Constitutional Mandate – Custodial Violence Cases Demand Highest Judicial Vigilance – Supreme Court reiterated principles from Lalita Kumari, D.K. Basu, Nilabati Behera and others, emphasising duty to uphold human dignity and prevent misuse of state power – Held: Extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 invoked to protect rule of law and constitutional rights [Paras 10-14, 24-27, 38].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s Judgment Set Aside – FIR Directed, CBI Probe Ordered, Counter FIR Quashed, Compensation Granted – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directed CBI to register FIR and conduct investigation, quashed counter FIR under Section 309 IPC, awarded ₹50 lakh interim compensation, and upheld appellant’s right to further legal remedies [Para 38].