Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Acquittal – Accused convicted under Sections 304B and 498A IPC by Trial Court – Conviction upheld by High Court – Deceased wife and infant child found dead in well – Alleged demand for gold ring and chain at ‘Chhoochhak’ ceremony held as insufficient to constitute a "dowry demand" under Section 304B – Supreme Court held that demands made post-marriage and not in connection with the marriage do not qualify as dowry – Conviction under Section 304B set aside [Paras 7–7.2].

Criminal Law – Cruelty by Husband – Section 498A IPC – Conviction Sustained – Evidence of prosecution witnesses supported consistent ill-treatment and harassment of deceased by accused following unmet demand of gold – Sessions Court and High Court found ingredients of Section 498A proved – Supreme Court upheld conviction under Section 498A [Para 7.3].

Sentence – Imprisonment Already Undergone – Appellant had served more time in prison than imposed under Section 498A IPC – Fine already paid – Supreme Court held that further incarceration not warranted – Appeal partly allowed with conviction under Section 304B set aside and sentence under Section 498A treated as already undergone [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 304B IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 498A IPC upheld – Sentence already undergone – No further imprisonment required.

Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation and Modification – Judicial Discipline – Finality of Orders – Appellant (accused in a murder case) sought modification of condition restricting him to city limits of Kolkata – Co-applicant sought cancellation of his bail alleging intimidation of witnesses and political interference – Court held that no breach of bail terms shown; cancellation unwarranted – Repeated modification petitions after earlier rejection viewed as forum-shopping – Held: Judicial orders must attain finality; bail conditions once upheld cannot be relaxed absent significant change in circumstances – Judicial discipline and certainty of verdicts must prevail [Paras 45–52].

Bail – Condition of Restricted Movement – Reasonableness under Article 21 – Restriction confining accused to Kolkata while on bail not unreasonable – Condition justified considering his influence, prior attempts to derail trial, and ongoing witness protection concerns – Held: Restriction serves public interest and fair-trial objective; liberty under Article 21 subject to procedural and societal safeguards [Paras 50–52].

Criminal Procedure – Cancellation of Bail – Political Patronage and Witness Intimidation Allegations – Complainant’s brother alleged that accused misused political clout, caused witnesses to turn hostile, and obtained undue police protection – Court observed irregularities in State conduct but found no conclusive evidence linking accused to witness tampering – Held: Mere apprehension insufficient; cancellation must rest on proof of breach or misuse of liberty [Paras 42–43].

Judicial Ethics – Finality of Verdicts – Consistency in Supreme Court Decisions – Court deprecated growing trend of reopening settled issues before differently constituted Benches – Emphasized that finality of decisions under Article 141 essential to preserve judicial authority and prevent endless litigation – Held: Later benches should defer to prior coordinate decisions unless glaring error warrants review or curative process [Paras 47–49].

Trial Practice – Role of Public Prosecutor – Sessions Court Criticism Quashed – Sessions Court’s remarks against Special Public Prosecutor for alleged laxity termed uncalled for and unjustified – Supreme Court expunged comments and reference to Legal Remembrancer – Directed prosecutor to continue trial with fairness and diligence – Held: Judicial officers must exercise restraint and avoid demoralizing remarks against prosecution unless warranted by record [Paras 61–67].

Directions: Application for cancellation of bail rejected – Application for modification of bail condition rejected – Adverse observations by Sessions Court against Special Public Prosecutor set aside – Sessions Court directed to conclude trial expeditiously but without undue haste or prejudice. [Paras 43, 52, 65–69].

Decision: Applications dismissed – Restriction on movement of accused to continue – Proceedings before Sessions Court to continue in accordance with law – Trial Court’s reference to Legal Remembrancer quashed.

Wildlife Law – Translocation of Captive Deer – Ecological and Welfare Standards – DDA’s decision to translocate approximately 600 spotted deer from A.N. Jha Deer Park, New Delhi, to Rajasthan and Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary upheld by the High Court – Petitioner (NGO) alleged violations of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and IUCN guidelines – Supreme Court found chronic managerial lapses, expired zoo licence, and overcrowding at Deer Park but noted prima facie irregularities in translocation including transfer of pregnant and juvenile deer, overcrowded transport, lack of tagging, and absence of habitat feasibility study – Held: Translocation violated CZA and IUCN protocols – Independent scientific assessment required before further action [Paras 17–21].

Animal Welfare – Captive Management – Welfare safeguards under Section 38H of the Wild Life Act and National Zoo Policy, 1998 – Record revealed absence of sterilisation, inadequate veterinary infrastructure, and overcrowding leading to distress among deer – Held: Continued retention of all deer in park contrary to animal welfare; however, future relocation must be scientific and humane under CZA supervision [Paras 18–19].

Administrative Lapses – Failure of Oversight – Central Zoo Authority’s repeated extensions despite DDA’s non-compliance noted – Absence of pre-translocation genetic screening, veterinary certification, and post-release monitoring – Held: Authorities failed to apply due diligence; need for oversight by Central Empowered Committee (CEC) under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 [Paras 20–21].

Constitutional Law – Articles 48A, 51A(g), and 21 – Environmental protection and compassion for living creatures form part of constitutional duty – Held: Wildlife management must reflect ecological prudence, dignity of life, and intergenerational equity; conservation cannot be treated as administrative expediency [Paras 23–24].

Directions – Supreme Court directed:

(i) CEC to conduct on-ground survey of Deer Park and Rajasthan reserves (Ramgarh Vishdhari & Mukundra Hills Tiger Reserves) within 8 weeks and report on deer numbers, habitat suitability, and compliance with CZA/IUCN norms;

(ii) DDA to furnish land-use report and refrain from commercial use of park premises;

(iii) No further translocation of deer till further orders [Paras 22(A–G)].

Decision: Matter listed for monitoring; further translocation stayed; CEC and DDA to file compliance reports by March 2026 [Para 25].

Criminal Law – Rape of Minor – Sentence Modification – Appellant convicted under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act for sexual assault on a minor girl aged 15–16 years – Sentenced to life imprisonment till natural death by Trial Court – Conviction upheld by High Court – Supreme Court, while upholding conviction, modified sentence to 25 years of actual imprisonment without remission considering the appellant’s young age, lack of prior criminal record, and satisfactory jail conduct – Held: Court empowered to impose fixed-term sentence in place of natural life imprisonment under binding precedent [Paras 2-7].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment – Scope of Judicial Discretion – Though offence was grave and against a minor, Court held that judicial discretion allows sentence to be tailored considering mitigating circumstances – Applied principle from Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka – Sentence modified accordingly [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal partially allowed – Conviction upheld – Sentence of life imprisonment until natural death reduced to fixed term of 25 years of actual imprisonment without remission [Paras 7-8].

Civil Law – Execution Sale – Order XXI Rule 64 and 66 CPC – Executing court is under a statutory obligation to consider whether sale of a part of the property would satisfy the decree – High Court erred in invalidating the auction sale solely on the ground that such consideration was absent without examining if the ground was raised earlier – Held: Judgment debtors, having had full notice and opportunity, failed to raise the issue of partial sale before the sale proclamation – Hence, barred by Order XXI Rule 90(3) CPC from raising it post-sale [Paras 9, 10, 17-19] – High Court judgment set aside – Auction sale held on 12.09.2002 restored.

Execution Proceedings – Judgment Debtor’s Conduct – Repeated opportunities were granted and judgment debtors were aware of ongoing reduction of upset price – They chose not to contest the sale terms at relevant stages – Held: Once due notice was given and participation made, failure to raise objections amounts to acquiescence – Belated challenge under Rule 90 CPC is barred [Paras 13, 18].

Interpretation of CPC – Rule 90(3) – Bar against post-sale objections on pre-sale grounds – Judgment debtor cannot challenge sale on a ground that could have been taken before the proclamation of sale – High Court’s assumption that this bar does not affect the duty of executing court under Rule 64 CPC is erroneous – Held: Bar under Rule 90(3) is applicable in present facts [Paras 17-19].

Judicial Precedents – Ambati Narasayya and Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi – Held to apply to pre-1976 cases – In post-1976 cases, Desh Bandhu Gupta case applies – Absence of notice is crucial to invalidate sale – But if notice was given and judgment debtor took no action, Rule 90(3) bars challenge – Present case involved full notice and failure to act – Hence, bar under Rule 90(3) applies [Paras 11-13, 15, 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order dated 10.02.2009 set aside – Orders of Executing Court dated 15.10.2004 and Appellate Court dated 13.07.2007 restored – Auction sale dated 12.09.2002 declared valid.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Section 7 IBC – Procedural Compliance – Affidavit Defect – Application by HDFC Bank under Section 7 IBC was supported by an affidavit dated prior to the date of verification – NCLT rejected the application as non est for not curing defects within time – NCLAT restored the petition but failed to insist on curing the affidavit defect – Supreme Court held that such affidavit-related procedural defects are curable and do not render the application non est – Proviso to Section 7(5)(b) IBC not complied with as notice was not personally served on the applicant bank – Consolidated registry notice was insufficient under IBC standards – Held: Procedural defect did not justify rejection – Respondent to cure defect within seven days and NCLT to proceed on merits [Paras 1-3, 6-7, 10-13, 15, 17, 19-20].

Procedural Law – NCLT Rules and Service of Notice – Rules 28 and 38 – Registry issued consolidated notice listing 26 defective matters including the respondent’s – Supreme Court held that proper statutory notice under IBC must be issued to the applicant, not merely published on the notice board or website – Service on authorized representative does not meet the requirement under Section 7(5)(b) – Procedural rules cannot override the substantive law [Paras 13-16].

Curable Defect – Affidavit in Support – Supreme Court reaffirmed that procedural lapses in affidavit form or date do not automatically nullify the application – Such defects are curable in line with earlier precedents – Rules of procedure should serve justice and not defeat it – Restoration of petition was proper, but direction to cure the affidavit defect should have been made explicit at NCLAT stage [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Respondent-bank directed to cure defects including affidavit within seven days – NCLT to proceed on merits thereafter – No costs awarded.

Public Contracts – Letter of Intent – Legal Nature – A Letter of Intent (LoI) is not a concluded contract and does not create enforceable rights unless conditions precedent are fulfilled – In this case, the LoI expressly stated that award of contract was subject to technical compliance, demonstration, and execution of agreement – Held: No concluded contract arose – Respondent’s reliance on LoI to assert vested rights was misconceived [Paras 11–19].

Judicial Review – Scope in Tender Matters – Administrative discretion in awarding or cancelling tenders must comply with Article 14 – However, courts must not interfere unless the action is palpably arbitrary or irrational – Held: Cancellation of LoI based on justifiable concerns including vendor’s non-compliance with preconditions – No mala fides or arbitrariness established – High Court erred in interfering with executive discretion [Paras 21–24, 49–54].

Contract Law – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Respondent claimed that prolonged communication and performance post-LoI created expectation of final contract – Held: Legitimate expectation doctrine does not arise where LoI is expressly conditional – Anticipated performance at bidder’s risk cannot override unfulfilled preconditions [Paras 55–56].

Administrative Law – Reasons for Cancellation – Absence of reasons in initial cancellation letter not fatal where valid justifications were contemporaneously recorded – Complaint about past blacklisting had been judicially repelled earlier and was not a valid ground – However, repeated non-compliance with key LoI requirements constituted reasonable basis for cancellation – Held: Cancellation order sustainable on second ground [Paras 26–47].

Equitable Relief – Quantum Meruit – Though cancellation upheld, Court directed State to compensate Respondent on quantum meruit basis for actual deliverables and hardware supplied during pilot stage – Held: Respondent entitled to reimbursement for equipment or services utilised – No claim for loss of profit or expectation allowed [Para 59].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment dated 30.05.2024 quashed – Cancellation of LoI dated 06.06.2023 upheld – State permitted to issue fresh tender – Respondent entitled to equitable reimbursement for utilised assets – No claim for loss of profit or expectation shall lie [Paras 59–60].

Criminal Law – Quashing Of FIR - Rape – Repeated Sexual Acts – Section 376(2)(n) IPC – FIR alleged repeated sexual relations by advocate on false promise of marriage – Supreme Court held that relationship lasted three years and involved mutual affection and voluntary acts – No indication of threat, coercion, or deceit from inception – Held: FIR failed to disclose a pattern of repeated sexual assault as contemplated under Section 376(2)(n) – Allegations lacked essential ingredients of the offence [Paras 20–23, 32–34].

Consent – False Promise of Marriage – Misconception of Fact – Respondent claimed sexual relationship based on false promise to marry – Supreme Court held promise was not shown to be false from inception – Relationship was consensual, continued even after alleged refusal to marry – Court reaffirmed that failed relationship alone does not convert consensual intimacy into rape – Allegations lacked proximate nexus between promise and consent [Paras 24–28, 35–38].

Misuse of Law – Rape Allegation after Relationship Fails – Court expressed concern over trend of failed romantic relationships being retrospectively coloured as rape – Held: Criminal law cannot be used as tool for vendetta or emotional retaliation – FIR was filed months after last alleged incident and after appellant refused to pay ₹1.5 lakhs – Complaint motivated and belated – Quashing warranted to prevent abuse of process [Paras 29–30, 33–34, 40].

Quashing – Prima Facie Offence Not Made Out – Applying Bhajan Lal principles – Allegations, even if taken at face value, did not constitute offences under Sections 376 or 507 IPC – FIR and chargesheet quashed as continuation of proceedings would amount to injustice and misuse of court machinery [Paras 39–41].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order refusing to quash set aside – FIR No. 294 of 2024 and Chargesheet No. 143 of 2024 quashed – Appreciation recorded for Amicus Curiae.

Criminal Law – Criminal Breach of Trust – Cheating – Quashment of Proceedings – Appellant, a former partner in a dissolved firm, sold property previously used by the firm to a third party – Respondent, a co-partner, filed a criminal complaint under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC alleging misappropriation and deceit – High Court refused to quash the complaint – Supreme Court held that mere sale of property after firm dissolution with mutual agreement does not constitute entrustment or dishonest misappropriation – No clear averments made in complaint on criminal intent or fraud at inception – Allegations failed to meet ingredients of Section 406 IPC [Paras 21–22].

Criminal Law – Cheating – Ingredients Not Made Out – Supreme Court held that criminal complaint lacked any material or allegations showing fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the time of partnership formation – Complaint did not disclose offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC – Mere breach of contract or civil wrong insufficient for invoking criminal prosecution [Paras 19–20].

Abuse of Criminal Process – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Complaint filed 16 years after alleged acts – Parallel civil suit already pending – Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings was an abuse of process and motivated by mala fide intent – Criminal law should not be used to settle civil or contractual disputes – Complaint quashed [Paras 24–27].

Quashing of Proceedings – Bhajan Lal Guidelines – Allegations did not disclose any offence even if taken at face value – Case squarely fell within illustrative categories laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal – Continuation of prosecution would amount to harassment and injustice [Paras 26–27].

Judicial Caution – Criminal Law Misuse – Citing Vishal Noble Singh v. State of U.P., Court reiterated the need for judicial vigilance against misuse of criminal justice system for private vendetta – Allegations unsupported by evidence strain judiciary and damage societal trust [Para 28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order set aside – Complaint Case No. 3230c of 2013 and all consequent proceedings quashed.