Criminal Law - Bail - Voluntary Marriage - Accusations of Abduction and Rape - The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant who was accused of offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The appellant sought bail contending that the victim had voluntarily married him, as per her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The Court noted that the victim's age was disputed, with the appellant claiming she was of marriageable age, while the complainant alleged she was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court granted bail to the appellant, considering his custody since December 2022 and subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the Trial Court. [Para 3-6]

Curative Petition Procedure and Maintainability - Question of maintainability of curative petitions after open court dismissal of review petitions - Analysis of Rule 5 of Order XV and Rule 2(1) of Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - The Registrar's refusal to register curative petitions based solely on the ground of review petitions being dismissed in open court found to be inappropriate. [Paras 1, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 22]

Curative Petition - Maintainability and Procedure - curative petitions as a means to rectify miscarriages of justice, the Court scrutinized the relevant provisions under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and pertinent case laws. The judgment clarified the Registrar's role and the procedural nuances in dealing with curative petitions, especially when the corresponding review petitions were dismissed in open court. [Para 1-14, 18-21]

Judicial Review of Registrar's Decision - The Court held that the decision to register or reject a curative petition is a judicial matter and should not be solely at the Registrar's discretion. It underscored that the Registrar’s refusal to register a curative petition based solely on the review petition’s dismissal in open court is not in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The Court established that such matters should be presented before a judicial bench for appropriate adjudication. [Para 10, 13, 18-19]

Specifics of Filing Curative Petitions - The judgment provided clarity on the process of filing curative petitions. It specified the necessity of including an application to be excused from the requirement of averring that the review petition was dismissed by circulation, in cases where the review petition was dismissed in open court. The procedure to be followed by the Registry in such cases was also elaborated upon. [Para 20-21]

Decision on the Appeals - While the Court set aside the Registrar's order for not being in line with the prescribed rules, it declined to entertain the curative petitions in the case at hand. The Court concluded that the appellants failed to present sufficient grounds warranting the invocation of curative jurisdiction, and thus, saw no merit in remanding the matter back to the Registrar. [Para 22-23]

Disposition - The Court disposed of the appeal and related miscellaneous applications, affirming the non-entertainment of the curative petitions filed by Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries and others. The decision was extended to cover similar appeals arising out of the Registrar's order, thereby bringing a conclusive end to these proceedings. [Para 24-26]

Tenancy and Ejectment – Ejectment of Tenants from Temple Properties – The Supreme Court dealt with petitions involving tenants occupying shops in temple properties managed under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The tenants were declared encroachers post-termination of their lease/licence, leading to ejectment orders. [Para 1-2]

Dispute Resolution – Amicable Settlement – The Court noted the efforts of counsel leading to a mutually agreeable resolution between the landlords (temple authorities) and tenants. Specific terms for ejectment and continued occupation under certain conditions were agreed upon. [Para 3-4]

Terms of Settlement – Specific Conditions for Ejectment and Continued Occupation – The Court outlined detailed conditions for the ejectment of 19 tenants who failed to clear arrears and for 51 tenants allowed a further six-month occupation under revised rent rates of 2015. Conditions included no property damage, adherence to municipal by-laws, clearance of statutory dues, and reduced rent payment for the COVID-19 pandemic period. [Para 4(a)-(i)]

Development Rights – Preferential Treatment for Existing Tenants – In case of future property development, the existing tenants (51 in number) were granted preferential treatment in shop allotment, subject to participation in the allotment process and matching the highest bid price. [Para 4(f)]

Compliance and Undertaking – Filing of Undertaking by Tenants – Tenants were directed to file an undertaking agreeing to the terms within three weeks. Non-compliance could lead to ejectment proceedings and contempt actions. [Para 4(g)-(j), 5]

Order – Disposal of Petitions and Applications – The Court disposed of the petitions and any pending applications in the terms agreed upon by the parties. [Para 5]

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Resolution of dispute between petitioners (landlords) and respondent (tenant) concerning the demised premises, with the landlord being a Trust and the tenant occupying under a lease dated 01.10.1972 – Rent initially Rs. 2,000/-, enhanced to Rs. 3,328/- [Para 2].

Settlement Terms Agreed by Parties – Tenant agrees to ejectment order based on grounds in the petition under the Rent Control Act – Tenant, aged 82 and bereaved due to COVID-19, given time till 28th February 2025 to vacate – Must clear all rent arrears and continue paying monthly rent of Rs. 3,328/- till possession is handed over [Paras 4(i)-(v)].

Tenant's Obligations – No damage, encumbrance, transfer of possession, or unauthorized construction on the premises – Ensure compliance with municipal by-laws and clear all statutory dues before vacating [Paras 4(vi)-(viii)].

Legal and Contempt Proceedings – Landlord permitted to initiate proceedings for possession and contempt in case of tenant’s violation of terms – Landlord should not hinder tenant's peaceful occupation [Paras 4(ix)-(x)].

Conclusion of Litigation – All litigation between parties related to the premises to be closed [Para 4(xi)].

Final Disposal – Petition disposed of as per settled terms; all pending applications, if any, also disposed of [Para 5].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Section 202 of Cr.PC – The Supreme Court considered whether the summoning order in a criminal complaint could be upheld when the accused resided outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate without adherence to Section 202 of the Cr.PC. The Court delved into the procedural aspects of issuing a summoning order and the mandatory requirements under Section 202 of the Cr.PC when an accused resides outside the jurisdiction. [Para 6, 8-11]

Jurisdiction – Section 202 Cr.PC – Police Investigation Report – Explored whether the absence of a police investigation report under Section 202 of the Cr.PC invalidates the process of summoning when the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court analyzed the necessity of postponing the issuance of process and the magistrate’s discretion in directing police investigation under Section 202. [Para 6, 10-11]

Commercial Transactions – Nature of Dispute – Assessed whether the dispute in question was criminal or civil in nature. The Court scrutinized the allegations and evidence presented, concluding that the dispute arose from a commercial transaction, thereby not constituting a criminal offense under the IPC. [Para 14-15]

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Complaint – Held that the criminal complaint against the appellants was to be quashed as it constituted an abuse of process of law. The complaint was found to be rooted in a civil dispute, lacking the elements of a criminal offense. The case was allowed in part, with the complaint continuing against other accused. [Para 15-16]

Non-disclosure of Acquittal in Criminal Case – Impact on Employment – The Supreme Court considered the case of Ravindra Kumar, whose selection as a constable was canceled due to non-disclosure of an acquitted criminal case. The case raised questions about the implications of non-disclosure of acquittal in criminal cases for government employment. [Para 1-5, 14]

Character Verification in Government Employment – Examined the requirements of character verification and disclosure of criminal antecedents in the context of government employment, specifically in police services. [Para 6-7, 9-11]

Applicability of Precedents – Discussed the application of principles from prior judgments, including Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (2016), in determining the impact of non-disclosure of criminal cases on employment. [Para 20-24, 27]

Objective Criteria for Employment Eligibility – The Court emphasized the importance of objective criteria in deciding employment eligibility in cases involving non-disclosure of criminal cases, especially those resulting in acquittal. [Para 18-19, 26, 28-29]

Decision – Reinstatement with Notional Benefits – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous orders and directing the reinstatement of Ravindra Kumar to the post of Constable with all notional benefits except arrears of salary. [Para 31]

Constitutional Law – Enemy Property – Custodian's Legal Status and Ownership – Court elaborated on the jurisprudential aspects of property ownership, distinguishing between ownership and possession. It critically analyzed the status of the Custodian under the Enemy Property Act, emphasizing that the Custodian, while holding statutory authority, does not acquire real ownership of enemy property. Instead, the role is confined to managing and safeguarding the property without transferring ownership rights. [Para 14-14.13]

Interpretation of Enemy Property Act – Nature and Extent of Custodian's Rights – The Court provided a thorough interpretation of the Enemy Property Act, detailing the scope of rights and interests vested in the Custodian. It was established that the Custodian's role is akin to a trustee, holding enemy property in trust, without actual transfer of ownership. This position is meant to ensure temporary custody and protective management, rather than permanent control or ownership. [Para 15-15.9]

Jurisprudential Aspect of Vesting in Context of Enemy Property – The term 'vesting' was examined within the specific context of the Enemy Property Act. The Court concluded that vesting of enemy property in the Custodian denotes a protective and administrative role rather than an ownership transfer. This interpretation upholds the temporary and managerial nature of the Custodian's position concerning enemy property. [Para 16-16.1]

Constitutional Analysis – Applicability of Articles 285 and 289 of the Indian Constitution – The judgment addressed the applicability of Articles 285 and 289, focusing on the doctrine of immunity from taxation in a federal structure. The Court held that enemy properties, vested in the Custodian, do not qualify as Union properties under Article 285 and hence are not exempt from state or local taxation. The Court differentiated between the absolute ban on State taxes on Union property under Article 285 and the qualified immunity for State properties under Article 289, elaborating on the historical and legal context of these provisions. [Para 17-21]

Decision – Tax Obligations of Custodian for Enemy Property – Overturning the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court held that enemy properties are subject to state and local taxation. It was clarified that the Custodian, acting as a trustee of these properties, is responsible for fulfilling relevant tax obligations. [Para 22]

Contempt Proceedings – Non-compliance with court orders – Appellant sought refund of excess amount paid over notified price for coal consignments in e-auction – Orders passed by High Court and Supreme Court directing refund – Contempt proceedings initiated due to non-compliance – Contempt application dismissed by High Court – Appeal against dismissal – High Court's order misconceived – Conclusion of claim for refund by Supreme Court – Justification for refund with interest – Interest rate discrepancy – Failure to comply with court orders – Direction for payment of interest at 12% per annum on refund amount – Deduction of interest already paid – Two-month deadline for payment – Personal liability of officers for non-payment – Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Constitutional Law – Right to Food – Scope of Article 21 – The Supreme Court addressed a petition seeking the implementation of Community Kitchens to combat hunger, malnutrition, and starvation. The petitioners invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, asserting the right to live with human dignity, including access to food and basic necessities. [Para 1-2]

National Food Security Act, 2013 – Legal Framework – The Court examined the provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA), emphasizing its shift towards a rights-based approach to food security. The NFSA mandates access to adequate quality food at affordable prices, particularly targeting vulnerable groups such as pregnant women, lactating mothers, and children. The Act also establishes mechanisms for grievance redressal and monitoring. [Para 6]

Judicial Review – Policy Matters – Limitations – The Court acknowledged the limited scope of judicial review in policy matters, emphasizing that courts do not interfere with the policy's wisdom or appropriateness. Instead, the focus remains on the legality of the policy. [Para 8]

Discretion of States – Alternative Welfare Schemes – The Court declined to direct the implementation of Community Kitchens, leaving it to the discretion of States and Union Territories to explore alternative welfare schemes permissible under the NFSA. [Para 9]

Decision – Disposal of Writ Petition – The Writ Petition was disposed of, with the Court affirming the legal framework provided by the NFSA and respecting the autonomy of States in choosing appropriate welfare measures to ensure food security and dignity for all citizens. [Para 10]