Facts:

Appellants and Respondent No. 2 involved in a partition suit (OS No. 92 of 2012).

Appellant No. 2 filed a criminal complaint (Criminal Complaint No. 518 of 2012) against the de facto complainant.

Criminal proceedings (PRC No. 2 of 2018) initiated against the Appellants for offenses under Sections 307, 323, 427, 447, and 506(2) read with Section 34 of IPC.

Appellants filed a petition (Criminal Petition No. 9225 of 2018) under Section 482 of CrPC in the High Court to quash the proceedings.

Issues:

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash the criminal proceedings.

Whether the allegations in the complaint and charge-sheet constitute offenses.

Held:

The High Court rightly refused to quash the criminal complaint, citing that inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases.

The power to quash should not be used to stifle legitimate prosecution, and the High Court can intervene if there is a manifest error by the Magistrate.

The judgment emphasizes that the High Court, in exercising Section 482, should not act as a trial court but only be prima facie satisfied about the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.

The Court agrees with the High Court's decision, stating that the allegations in the complaint, coupled with statements recorded by the Magistrate, have the necessary ingredients of offenses under relevant sections of IPC.

The appeal is dismissed.

Facts:

Appellant purchased a vehicle through an auction conducted by ICICI Bank.

Vehicle was insured by the first respondent, with the policy mentioning the third respondent as the insured.

Appellant filed an insurance claim after the vehicle was stolen; claim was rejected by the insurer.

Dispute arose regarding the ownership transfer and insurance liability.

Issues:

Whether the insurer can repudiate the claim based on the ownership details mentioned in the registration certificate.

The impact of the transfer of ownership on the insurance policy.

Held:

The court clarified that Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act primarily concerns third-party risks.

The court distinguished cases related to liability to third parties from insurance claims.

Emphasized that the insurer accepted the premium, issued the policy, and was informed about the ownership transfer.

Insurer cannot repudiate the claim based on an unsustainable basis.

Appellant awarded the claimed amount with interest at 9% per annum.

The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.

Facts:

The appellant filed an appeal against the High Court's judgment, challenging the reduction in the sentence of the accused.

The case involved offenses under various sections of IPC and the Arms Act, arising from an incident with injuries caused to PW-6 and PW-7.

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 307 IPC, sentencing them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

The High Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence and altered charges against some accused.

Issues:

Whether the injuries caused demonstrated the accused's intention to commit murder.

Whether the High Court's reduction in sentence was justified.

Whether the sentence imposed proportionately reflected the gravity of the offense.

Held:

The Court emphasized that intention to cause death or grievous injury is necessary for a conviction under Section 307 IPC. The injuries were considered grievous, capable of causing death.

The Court criticized the High Court for undue sympathy to the accused, stressing the need for proportionate sentencing based on the gravity of the offense.

The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, increased the sentence for accused No.1 to six years and six months, and affirmed the acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 307 IPC.

The Court maintained the fine amount and compensation to be paid to the injured victims. Accused No.1 was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.

Facts:

The Respondents booked a residential villa with the Appellants.

The agreement stipulated possession by December 31, 2014, upon timely payments.

Respondents deposited Rs. 8.14 crores, but possession was not delivered by the agreed date.

Appellants cited additional work and Stop Work Notices by Pune Municipal Corporation.

Issues:

Whether the Appellants were in deficiency of service for not delivering possession by the agreed-upon date.

Validity of the additional work claim and its impact on possession.

Responsibility for delays due to Stop Work Notices.

Held:

The Court upheld the NCDRC's decision, finding deficiencies in the Appellants' service. The Respondents were justified in seeking a refund with reasonable interest. Even if the villa is now ready, the five-year delay was deemed crucial, and the original bargain could not be imposed on the Respondents. The Court directed the refund and imposed restrictions on the sale of the villa. The appeals stand dismissed.

Facts:

Sunita was convicted for the murder of Sushila based on circumstantial evidence.

Prosecution relied on evidence of last seen theory, extra-judicial confession, and recovery of a Scooty.

Appellant's counsel argued the prosecution's case was unreliable, pointing out contradictions and lack of motive.

Issues:

Credibility of witnesses, especially Neeraj (PW-4) and Pirthi Singh (PW-5).

Adequacy of evidence, including last seen theory, Scooty recovery, and extra-judicial confession.

Establishing a motive for the alleged murder.

Held:

Circumstantial Evidence: The court emphasized the need for circumstantial evidence to meet specific tests, including cogency, tendency pointing towards guilt, forming a complete chain, and being inconsistent with innocence.

Evidence of Last Seen: Last seen theory, as presented by Neeraj (PW-4), was considered weak evidence by itself. The court stressed that when coupled with other circumstances, such as time of last sighting and proximity to the recovery of the body, it could be used to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

Inconsistencies and Motive: The court highlighted inconsistencies in witness statements, especially regarding the height of the deceased. The suggested motive, fear of losing property, was not convincingly established.

Scooty and Extra-Judicial Confession: Evidence related to the Scooty and the extra-judicial confession was found insufficient. Lack of blood marks on the Scooty raised doubts about its use in disposing of the body.

Failure to Establish Murder: The prosecution failed to establish the place and manner of the murder. The court clarified that the appellant was not required to explain the circumstances of body parts found in a 'Bitora' in the village.

Conclusion: Given the lack of conclusive evidence, inconsistencies, and doubts raised by the appellant's counsel, the court granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted the appellant of the charges. The appeal was allowed, and the bail bonds were discharged. The appellant was to be set at liberty.

Facts:

The Sabha's Constitution governs its affairs, including the election process for the General Council and Managing Committee.

An Election Officer issued an election program with unit-wise reservations for certain posts and reserved seats for women.

The election program was challenged, leading to a decision by the Industrial Court directing elections as per the Constitution, without unit-wise elections and without reservations for women.

Issues:

Whether the election program's stipulations were consistent with the Constitution of the Sabha.

The challenge to the Industrial Court's decision in the High Court.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Industrial Court and the High Court, emphasizing that the election program's stipulations were not consistent with the Constitution of the Sabha. The Court held that the program must align with the governing Statute and the Sabha's Constitution. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Facts:

Appellant appointed as a temporary Assistant Grade-III in 1983.

Absent for 1968 days between 1987 and 1993, later sanctioned as medical leave.

Promoted to temporary Assistant Grade-II in 1990.

Medical Board in 1992 found excessive leave based on medical certificates.

Termination in 1994 following unsatisfactory reply to show cause notice.

Issues:

Applicability of Regulation 24 of the 1975 Regulations.

Validity of termination without a formal domestic inquiry.

Regularization of absence as leave as a ground for termination.

Held:

The termination under Regulation 24 was not justified as appellant had over eleven years of service.

Formal domestic inquiry is necessary for termination with serious civil consequences.

Regularization of absence as leave was a valid point against termination.

High Court's decision on the termination upheld, but back wages reduced to 10% due to appellant's habitual absenteeism.

Appellant granted reinstatement but not required to work, with salary payment until superannuation in May 2020.

Facts:

The case involves the appellant, Bharatbhai Bhimabhai Bharwad, challenging the grant of bail to respondents No.2 and 3.

The respondents were accused of serious offenses related to causing hurt and attempted murder.

The trial court granted bail to respondents No.2 and 3 based on certain considerations, including the recovery of weapons and the health status of the injured parties.

The appellant challenged the bail order in the High Court, alleging an arbitrary exercise of discretion by the trial court.

Issues:

Whether there was an arbitrary exercise of discretion in granting bail to the respondents.

Whether the High Court properly understood the nature of the challenge raised by the appellant.

Held:

The Supreme Court emphasized the difference between considerations for cancellation of bail and challenging the grant of bail on the grounds of an arbitrary exercise of discretion. It clarified that the appellant had challenged the very grant of bail on the ground of arbitrary exercise of discretion, not merely seeking cancellation.( Para 10)

As the High Court proceeded as if the appellant had filed the application only for cancellation of bail, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and remitted the matter to the High Court for reconsideration. The High Court is directed to treat the application as challenging the order of grant of bail and proceed accordingly.( Para 11)

Facts:

The case involves a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the appellant's cheques were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Section 143A, introduced in 2018, allows the court to order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant. The appellant challenged the order of the Trial Court, which directed the payment of interim compensation.

Issues:

The prospective or retrospective applicability of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning the payment of interim compensation.

Held:

The court held that Section 143A is prospective and applies only to cases where offenses under Section 138 were committed after its introduction. It emphasized that Section 143A creates a new liability and exposes the accused to coercive recovery methods. The court set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court, directing the return of the money deposited as interim compensation along with interest. The court allowed the appeal.