Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Dispute over property between complainant and father of appellants pending prior to alleged incident – Police had already initiated proceedings under Sections 151, 107, and 116 Cr.P.C. against both parties to maintain peace – Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed six weeks after incident – Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. followed rejection of application under Section 156(3) – High Court erred in not quashing proceedings which were manifestly attended with malafide and aimed at exerting pressure in property dispute – Appeal allowed [Paras 20-24].

Jurisdiction – Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court's failure to exercise jurisdiction despite clear case of abuse of process – Judicial precedent from Bhajan Lal's case applied – Quashing of proceedings justified to prevent misuse of judicial process [Paras 10-16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings quashed as abuse of process of court with malicious intent [Paras 24-25].

Town Planning – Lapsing of Reservation – Appellants purchased property subject to reservation under the development plan – Notice under Section 127 by previous owners did not result in lapsing of reservation due to issuance of declaration under Section 126(4) within ten years – Revised Development Plan re-confirmed the reservation [Paras 4-9, 25-27].

Acquisition and Compensation – Delay in Acquisition – No acquisition steps taken for over two decades after declaration under Section 126(4) – Appellants to wait ten years from the revised plan effective date for fresh notice under Section 127 – No invocation of Article 142 for equitable relief due to appellants’ knowledge of reservation at purchase [Paras 32-37].

Judicial Review – Interpretation of Statutes – Provisions of Sections 49 and 127 read in conjunction with revised Development Plans – No merit in appellants’ contention based on previous owners’ notice – Future course of action clarified for appellants [Paras 21-29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Appellants must wait ten years from May 15, 2012, to issue a new notice under Section 127 of the Act unless acquisition steps are taken. No order as to costs.

Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and others (2003) 2 SCC 111

Chhabildas v. State of Maharashtra and others (2018) 2 SCC 784

Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra and others (2007) 7 SCC 555

Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra 2011 (3) SCC 1

Hasmukhrai V. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra and others (2015) 3 SCC 154

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Dr. Hakimwadi Tenants' Association and others (1998) Supp. SCC 55

Prafulla C. Dave and others v. Municipal Commissioner and others (2015) 11 SCC 90

Shrirampur Municipal Council v. Satvabhamabai Bhimaii Dawkher (2013) 5 SCC 627

Anticipatory Bail – Duration and Termination – Interpretation of Section 438 CrPC – Consideration of whether anticipatory bail should be limited to a fixed period and end when the accused is summoned by the court – Conflicting decisions analyzed – Emphasis on the discretion of courts to set conditions, including duration, based on case specifics – Normal rule should be not to limit anticipatory bail to a fixed period unless justified by circumstances [Paras 42-43, 7.5].

Discretion of Courts – Conditions Imposed – Courts have the discretion to impose conditions while granting anticipatory bail, including limiting its operation period – Such conditions should ensure balance between individual liberty and investigation requirements – Reference to decisions by Constitution Bench and subsequent conflicting judgments [Paras 2.3, 3.6, 7.3].

Legal Precedents – Clarification of Law – Detailed examination of judgments including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh – Reaffirmation of Constitution Bench’s stance that anticipatory bail should not be time-bound as a rule but can be limited if circumstances demand [Paras 2.8, 3.4, 7.4].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed. Clarification provided on the discretionary power of courts regarding the duration and conditions of anticipatory bail. Courts may limit the duration based on case-specific circumstances, but this should not be the general rule.

Mercy Petition – Judicial Review – Grounds for Review – Quick consideration and rejection of mercy petition by the President not grounds for judicial review – Delay may warrant review, but swift rejection suggests thorough consideration not predetermined stance – Petitioner’s arguments on non-application of mind and solitary confinement found unsubstantiated [Paras 35-36].

Relevant Materials – Requirement – President’s decision on mercy petition must consider all relevant materials – Affidavit of Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs confirms all necessary documents were placed before the President – Contention of petitioner regarding non-consideration of materials dismissed [Paras 19-23].

Solitary Confinement – Misinterpretation – Petitioner’s claim of solitary confinement rejected based on affidavit of Director General Prisons – Petitioner kept in a single room with access to common areas, not solitary confinement under legal definitions [Para 29].

Legal Precedents – Limited Grounds for Review – Reaffirmation of established principles for judicial review of executive decisions on mercy petitions – Relevant cases discussed including Shatrughan Chauhan and Narayan Dutt [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed. The Supreme Court found no grounds to exercise judicial review of the President’s rejection of the mercy petition. Petitioner’s arguments on quick rejection, non-application of mind, and solitary confinement were not substantiated.

Service Law – Recruitment and Promotion – Deputation and Absorption – Appointment of respondent on deputation as Project Engineer (Electrical) in NOIDA and subsequent absorption challenged by appellants – Regulation 16 of 1981 Regulations permits appointment by deputation – Recruitment and Promotion Policy 2005 inconsistent with 1981 Regulations and not implemented – Absorption of respondent upheld [Paras 7-16, 20-22].

Eligibility for Promotion – Ineligibility of Appellants – Appellants lacked requisite 8 years of experience as Assistant Project Engineer at the time of respondent’s appointment and absorption – Not eligible for promotion, challenge to appointment not maintainable – Appellants have no locus standi to challenge the appointment [Paras 23-25].

Legal Precedents – Absorption Rules – U.P. Absorption Rules 1984 and 1987 Regulations applicable – Absorption of respondent valid under statutory regulations – Respondent relieved from parent department and absorbed in NOIDA [Paras 19, 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court found no merit in the appellants’ challenge to the appointment and absorption of the respondent. The appellants were ineligible for promotion, and the respondent’s absorption was in accordance with the applicable regulations. No order as to costs.

Employment Law – Sexual Harassment – Stigmatic Termination – Appeal against termination based on the Internal Complaints Committee’s report on allegations of sexual harassment – Supreme Court held the termination order to be ex-facie stigmatic and illegal due to lack of a formal inquiry as per service rules – Order of termination set aside and reinstatement ordered, with further actions to be taken by the University as per law [Paras 7-11].

Stigmatic Termination – Requirement of Formal Inquiry – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of a formal inquiry into allegations of sexual harassment before issuing a termination order – Mere reference to the Internal Complaints Committee’s findings in the termination order constitutes stigma, requiring adherence to due process [Paras 9-10].

Reinstatement and Further Inquiry – Directions – Supreme Court directed reinstatement of the appellant while leaving the decision on back wages, suspension, and further departmental inquiry to the University as per service rules and law [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s orders set aside – Termination order quashed – Appellant reinstated – Further actions including possible suspension and departmental inquiry to be pursued by the University in accordance with law [Para 12].

Land Law – Determination of Surplus Land – Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act – Appeal against High Court’s order regarding surplus land determination – Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision that the Single Judge erred in applying Section 8(3) of the 1972 Act – Surplus land determination under the 1953 Act should continue under the old Act, and new Act provisions are inapplicable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7-31].

Transfer of Land – Validity and Bonafides – Appellants' claim to land purchased after it was declared surplus – Court held that appellants were not bona fide purchasers as the land was vested in the State prior to their purchase – Appeal dismissed [Paras 5-5.3].

Interpretation of Repeal and Saving Clauses – Supreme Court interpreted Section 33(2) of the 1972 Act to mean that proceedings pending under the 1953 Act must be continued and disposed of under the 1953 Act – New Act’s provisions do not apply to these proceedings [Paras 9-24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Division Bench’s order upheld – Single Judge’s application of Section 8(3) of 1972 Act overturned – Surplus land determination to follow 1953 Act provisions [Paras 31-32].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Multiple Dying Declarations – Appeal against conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC – Supreme Court upheld conviction noting that the dying declaration on 13.02.2008 was consistent and trustworthy – Other dying declarations recorded under suspect circumstances – Appeal partly allowed with modification of life sentence to seven years rigorous imprisonment [Paras 16-25].

Evidence – Multiple Dying Declarations – Reliability – Supreme Court held that each dying declaration must be assessed independently – The dying declaration on 13.02.2008 found reliable despite earlier inconsistent declarations due to the suspect circumstances under which they were made [Paras 16-23].

Sentence Modification – Dowry Death – Supreme Court modified life imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment considering appellant’s age and family circumstances – Emphasized life imprisonment under Section 304B IPC should be in rare cases [Para 24].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC upheld – Sentence modified to seven years rigorous imprisonment including time already served – Fine and default sentence upheld [Paras 24-25].

Specific Relief – Bona Fide Purchaser – Defendant No. 2 contested the decree for possession, arguing he was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the agreement between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. Courts below assumed connivance between defendants without substantial evidence – Specific performance set aside [Paras 1-12].

Readiness and Willingness – The plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract at the time of filing the suit and on the due date was not sufficiently proved – The courts below erred in their concurrent findings [Paras 9-10].

Compensation – In lieu of specific performance, the defendant No. 2 (appellant) directed to pay Rs. 350,000 to the plaintiff, inclusive of the earnest money – Amount to be paid within three months, failing which it will carry interest at 12% per annum [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part. The decree for specific performance set aside, and the appellant directed to compensate the plaintiff with Rs. 350,000.