Criminal Law – Copyright Infringement – Expert Report – Appellant alleged that respondents copied the design of its bookbinding machine, leading to registration of FIR under Copyright Act, IPC, and IT Act – High Court initially ordered expert opinion by FSL with involvement of an engineer – FSL and IO submitted a report dated 21.03.2019 – Respondents dissatisfied and sought further directions [Paras 3-7].

Procedural Law – Maintainability – Application in Disposed Petition – Second application filed in disposed Special Criminal Application held improper – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the second application post disposal of the main petition and ordering additional expert opinion [Paras 8-14].

Investigation – Validity of Multiple Expert Opinions – Supreme Court held that once the High Court accepted the initial expert report, it was improper to direct IO to obtain a fresh expert opinion – The direction would prejudice the investigation and parties – Investigation should proceed on existing report subject to objections by the accused before the IO [Paras 13-16].

Investigation – Discretion of Investigating Officer – Supreme Court granted liberty to respondents to raise objections before IO regarding expert report – IO to exercise discretion whether further expert opinion is required under applicable laws without mandatory direction from High Court [Para 16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s direction for additional expert opinion quashed – Liberty given to respondents to raise objections before IO – IO permitted to proceed as per law without compulsion to seek second opinion [Paras 16-17].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheques – Moratorium under IBC – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Appeal Allowed – The appellant, a director of a corporate debtor, issued cheques that were dishonoured, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act – A moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC was imposed before the completion of the statutory 15-day period following the notice of dishonour – High Court dismissed appellant’s petition, relying on P. Mohan Raj v. M/S Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 6 SCC 258 – Held: P. Mohan Raj was distinguishable as the cause of action in the present case arose after the imposition of the moratorium – Since the appellant, due to the moratorium and Section 17 of the IBC, was no longer in charge of the corporate debtor, he was incapable of fulfilling the demand – Proceedings under Section 138 NI Act against him were impermissible and should have been quashed [Paras 6-12].

IBC – Effect of Moratorium – Protection to Corporate Debtor and its Directors – Proceedings under NI Act Barred – Under Section 14(1)(a) of the IBC, a moratorium prohibits the institution or continuation of suits and proceedings against the corporate debtor – The moratorium extends to all legal actions affecting the corporate debtor, including criminal complaints under Section 138 NI Act if the cause of action arises post-moratorium – Since the appellant ceased to have control over the corporate debtor due to the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), he could not have complied with the demand notice – Held: The proceedings under Section 138 NI Act were barred and deserved to be quashed [Paras 7-11].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – High Court’s Error – Quashing Justified – High Court failed to appreciate the distinction between a case where the cause of action under Section 138 NI Act arose before the moratorium and a case where it arose after – Given that the cause of action in this case was post-moratorium, the High Court erred in dismissing the appellant’s petition – Supreme Court invoked its power to quash the proceedings to prevent the abuse of the legal process [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the summoning order dated 07.09.2018 – Complaint Case No. 15580/2018 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, also quashed [Para 13].

Administrative Law – Auroville Foundation – Power of Governing Board – Validity of Standing Order Upheld – The appellant challenged the High Court's order setting aside Standing Order No. 01/2022, which reconstituted the Auroville Town Development Council – High Court erred in holding that the Residents’ Assembly had a legal right to nominate members to the ATDC – Held: Governing Board, under Sections 11(3), 16, and 17(e) of the A.F. Act, has exclusive authority over the management and implementation of Auroville’s Master Plan – Residents’ Assembly’s role is advisory and does not extend to nominating members to administrative committees – Impugned High Court order set aside [Paras 12-17].

Doctrine of Clean Hands – Suppression of Material Facts – Abuse of Process of Law – The respondent had previously filed Writ Petition No. 22895/2022 challenging the same Office Order dated 01.06.2022, which was dismissed – She filed Writ Petition No. 25882/2022 without disclosing the prior dismissal – Held: Non-disclosure of material facts constitutes abuse of process of law – High Court failed to consider this suppression and should have dismissed the petition on this ground alone [Paras 9-11].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope in Policy Matters – No Judicial Overreach – The High Court wrongly interpreted the A.F. Act and interfered with the validly issued Standing Order – Held: Courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions or introduce procedural safeguards not contemplated in law – Governing Board’s power to constitute committees, including ATDC, is well established in the Act and Rules – Judicial interference in administrative decisions must be limited [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Order Set Aside – Costs Imposed – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, upheld the validity of Standing Order No. 01/2022, and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the respondent for filing a frivolous petition – Costs to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks [Para 19].
 

Environmental Law – Jurisdiction of NGT – Tribunal Exceeded Powers – Appeal Allowed – The NGT directed the appellant to prepare a fresh township plan and obtain Environmental Clearance before further construction – Held: NGT lacked jurisdiction as no substantial question of environmental law under Schedule I of the NGT Act was involved – The Tribunal overstepped its authority by interfering with a Master Plan approved in 2001 and gazetted in 2010 – Order quashed [Paras 10-12].

Auroville Master Plan – Statutory Validity – No Fresh Approval Required – The Master Plan for Auroville was approved by the competent authorities in 2001 and legally notified in 2010 – Tribunal’s direction for a fresh township plan was unwarranted – Held: Once a Master Plan attains statutory status, it cannot be nullified or modified arbitrarily by a judicial forum lacking legislative or administrative authority [Paras 13-14].

Environmental Impact Assessment – Applicability to Auroville Project – No Fresh EC Required – The Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC) had clarified that the Auroville Township Project commenced before the EIA Notification, 1994, and thus did not require Environmental Clearance under the 2006 notification – Held: Tribunal’s directive to obtain EC was contrary to the legal position – No new environmental concerns were demonstrated to justify such an order [Paras 14-15].

Precautionary Principle – Misapplication by NGT – No Environmental Violation Established – The Tribunal applied the Precautionary Principle to justify its interference, despite ruling that the disputed land was not a forest under the Forest (Conservation) Act – Held: Precautionary Principle does not grant courts the power to override statutory planning approvals without clear environmental violations – Unsubstantiated concerns cannot override legal frameworks [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – NGT Order Quashed – Auroville Master Plan Implementation Restored – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the NGT’s orders – Held that the appellant is free to proceed with the approved Master Plan, including construction of the Crown Road, without further clearance [Paras 19-20].
 

Criminal Law - Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Discharge Application – Continuing Offence – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant, a retired IAS officer, sought discharge from prosecution under PMLA, contending that the alleged predicate offences were committed before PMLA came into force – High Court dismissed his plea, holding that money laundering is a continuing offence – Held: Money laundering persists as long as proceeds of crime are used, concealed, or projected as untainted – PMLA applies even if predicate offences occurred before its enactment, provided the proceeds are still in circulation – No illegality in High Court’s order rejecting the discharge application [Paras 21-25].

Criminal Law – Retrospective Application of PMLA – No Merit in Appellant’s Contention – Appellant argued that PMLA was applied retrospectively as the alleged offences predated its enforcement – Held: The offence of money laundering is independent of the predicate offence and continues so long as tainted property is in possession or use – Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1, affirmed that PMLA is not applied retrospectively but as a continuing offence – Appellant failed to prove that the proceeds of crime were not laundered post-enactment of PMLA [Paras 22-24].

Economic Offences – Strict Judicial Approach – Quashing Not Warranted – Allegations against the appellant included large-scale corruption, illegal land allotments, and hawala transactions – Proceeds of crime exceeded ₹1.32 crores, justifying prosecution under PMLA – Held: Economic offences affect national integrity and require strict scrutiny – Courts must be cautious in quashing proceedings at the discharge stage – Appellant’s argument regarding monetary threshold under PMLA was misplaced, as the total proceeds of crime exceeded statutory limits even before the 2013 amendment [Paras 26-30].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial to Proceed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal and allowing prosecution to continue – Affirmed that the appellant must face trial given the serious nature of allegations and financial implications of the offence [Paras 35-37].

Criminal Procedure – Registration of FIR – Preliminary Inquiry – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant, a retired IAS officer, challenged multiple FIRs registered against him regarding land allotment irregularities during his tenure as Collector – He sought a direction for a mandatory preliminary inquiry before the registration of further FIRs – High Court dismissed the plea, holding that registration of FIRs for cognizable offences is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC – Held: Preliminary inquiry is required only in limited cases, and not where cognizable offences such as corruption and abuse of office are alleged – Registration of successive FIRs is a matter for investigation and trial, and the appellant has adequate legal remedies, including quashing under Section 482 CrPC and seeking bail – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6-15].

Constitutional Law – Right to Liberty – Articles 14, 20, and 21 – No Blanket Protection Against FIRs – The appellant argued that multiple FIRs violated his right to liberty and were lodged to harass him – Held: Fundamental rights do not provide immunity from investigation if a cognizable offence is disclosed – A blanket order restraining future FIRs or mandating preliminary inquiry in every case would amount to judicial overreach – Courts cannot create procedural safeguards beyond what is provided in law [Paras 10-14].

Precedents – Application of Lalita Kumari Case – No Absolute Requirement for Preliminary Inquiry – The appellant relied on Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 to argue that a preliminary inquiry should have been conducted before registering FIRs – Held: Lalita Kumari only mandates preliminary inquiry in limited categories of cases such as medical negligence and family disputes – In corruption cases, where clear allegations of cognizable offences exist, FIRs must be registered without inquiry – Appellant’s reliance on Lalita Kumari misplaced [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Relief Granted – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appellant’s plea – Clarified that the appellant is free to seek other legal remedies, including challenging specific FIRs through appropriate judicial forums [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Employer’s Liability for Workplace Accident – No Prima Facie Case Under Section 304 IPC – Appellants engaged in interior decoration work were accused of causing death by negligence after two employees were electrocuted while working on a shop signboard – Prosecution alleged lack of safety measures such as rubber shoes and belts – Trial Court and High Court refused discharge, holding that the accused had knowledge of the risks – Supreme Court held that mere failure to provide safety equipment does not amount to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC – No evidence of intention or knowledge to cause death – Appeal allowed, appellants discharged [Paras 1-7, 12-16].

Applicability of Section 304A IPC – Purely Accidental Death Not Attributable to Criminal Negligence – Supreme Court analyzed the definition of culpable homicide under Section 299 IPC and noted that for Section 304 Part II IPC to apply, there must be knowledge that the act is likely to cause death – Held: No evidence suggested that the accused had such knowledge – Incident was an unfortunate accident, and prosecution’s reliance on Section 304A IPC was misplaced – No prima facie case made out even for criminal negligence [Paras 13-17].

Discharge Under Section 227 CrPC – Lack of Sufficient Grounds for Trial – Court reiterated that at the discharge stage, there must be sufficient material to justify launching a criminal trial – Held: There was no overt act or direct negligence on part of appellants – Criminal proceedings would be unjustified – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the discharge applications [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of Trial Court and High Court set aside – Appellants discharged from Sessions Case No. 749 of 2014 – No further proceedings against them .

Criminal Law – Rape Conviction – Appeal Against Conviction – Appellant convicted under Sections 376 and 323 IPC for committing rape on the prosecutrix – Trial Court sentenced him to 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC and 6 months under Section 323 IPC – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence while acquitting him under Section 506 IPC – Appeal filed before Supreme Court challenging the conviction on grounds of false implication and lack of corroborative medical evidence – Supreme Court upheld conviction, holding that the testimony of the prosecutrix was credible and trustworthy [Paras 1-6, 17].

Prosecutrix’s Testimony – Reliability and Medical Evidence – Prosecutrix alleged that the appellant forcibly raped her after gagging her mouth and overpowering her – Defence argued that medical evidence did not show injuries on private parts, discrediting the prosecution case – Supreme Court held that absence of injuries does not necessarily disprove rape, as overpowering by force can still constitute the offence – Testimony of prosecutrix found consistent, credible, and trustworthy, sufficient to sustain conviction without corroboration [Paras 7-11].

Delay in Lodging FIR – False Implication Defence – Appellant contended that delay in filing FIR raises doubts about the veracity of the allegations – Court held that the prosecutrix was threatened by the accused and her delay in reporting was justified – Defence of false implication was rejected, as no cogent evidence was provided to substantiate this claim [Paras 12-13].

Character Assassination of Prosecutrix’s Mother – Not Relevant – Appellant argued that the prosecutrix’s mother had a questionable character, implying false implication – Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the character of a third party has no bearing on the determination of the offence – Conviction must be judged independently of any moral assumptions about the victim’s family [Paras 16].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 376 and 323 IPC upheld – Sentence confirmed – State authorities directed to consider remission as per applicable policy within four weeks [Paras 17-18].
 

Civil Law – Auction - Lease Agreement – No Transfer of Ownership Without Execution of Lease – Leasehold Rights Never Created – The agreement to lease dated 17th July 1957 did not create any right, title, or interest in favor of M/s Mehta Constructions until a formal lease deed was executed – Since no lease was executed, M/s Mehta Constructions had no transferrable interest in the plot – Any subsequent transfers, including the auction sale, did not confer ownership or leasehold rights to the respondents [Paras 7-8, 11].

Auction Sale in Liquidation – Property Sold on "As-Is Basis" – No Right to Title or Leasehold Interest – The auction sale in liquidation proceedings conveyed only whatever rights the original lessee had – Since M/s Mehta Constructions never acquired a valid leasehold interest, the auction purchaser (first respondent) could not claim ownership or lessee rights over the plot – The High Court correctly held that the auction sale did not amount to a valid transfer of the property [Paras 12-14].

Nazul Land – Requirement of Government Approval for Transfer – Violation of Rules – The plot in question was Nazul land, which belongs to the Union of India and is managed by the DDA – As per Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, and Rule 43 of the 1981 Rules, the lessor's prior consent was mandatory for any transfer – Since no such consent was obtained, the transfer was illegal and could not confer any legal rights to the respondents [Paras 5, 11, 14].

Judicial Review – No Interference with High Court Decision – Remedy Available for DDA – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, noting that the auction sale was only for the transfer of whatever rights existed under the lease agreement, which were non-existent – However, the Court clarified that the DDA retains the right to pursue appropriate legal remedies for recovery of possession or unearned income from the respondents if required [Paras 14-16].

Liquidation Proceedings – Conflicting Claims on Sale Proceeds – No Direction for Payment of Unearned Income – The Provisional Liquidator confirmed that substantial amounts from the auction sale were invested in fixed deposits – However, multiple claims exceeding ₹60 crores were pending against the liquidated company – The Supreme Court ruled that it was inappropriate to direct any portion of the available funds to be used for payment of unearned income to DDA, leaving it to the Company Court’s discretion [Paras 9-10, 13].

Decision – Supreme Court Dismisses DDA’s Appeal – No Right to Ownership for Respondents – Remedy Available for DDA – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the first respondent does not acquire ownership or leasehold rights in the said plot – The DDA retains the right to initiate legal action for recovery of possession and unearned income if it so chooses – The first respondent may apply to DDA for regularization of the transaction, subject to legal compliance and payment of necessary dues [Paras 14-16].