Civil Law - Contempt Petition – Delay in Compliance with Supreme Court’s Order – Compensation in Lieu of Contempt – Petition filed for non-compliance of the Supreme Court’s order dated 17.01.2018 directing the Bank to release outstanding dues to the petitioner within three months – Although the Bank eventually made the payments in 2019, there was significant delay without valid justification – Supreme Court held that the delay did not constitute wilful or contumacious disobedience, but acknowledged the prolonged non-payment and denied claim for pension, granting a lump sum compensation of ₹3,00,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner – Contempt proceedings closed with liberty barred for future litigation upon compliance [Paras 1-21].

Contempt of Court – Delay in Compliance – Mens Rea Essential – No Wilful Disobedience Found – Despite clear direction from Supreme Court to disburse outstanding dues within three months (order dated 17.01.2018), the Bank delayed payment until 2019 – Supreme Court held that while delay is apparent, it was not deliberate or wilful – Administrative hurdles post-merger and legacy record issues cited as mitigating factors – Contempt not established [Paras 13-18].

Contempt Jurisdiction – New Claims Cannot Be Entertained – Pension Claim Rejected – Petitioner sought pensionary benefits during contempt proceedings – Supreme Court ruled that contempt is not a forum to raise new claims or seek substantive reliefs not granted earlier – Since no such relief was sought or adjudicated in the civil appeals, the claim for pension was rejected [Paras 10, 19].

Compensation – Delay in Retirement Dues – Lump Sum Relief Granted – Noting that the petitioner had retired in 2006 and dues were paid belatedly despite long-standing favourable orders, the Court directed payment of ₹3,00,000 to the widow of the deceased as compensatory relief to bring finality to the matter – Interest at 8% imposed for default in payment within eight weeks [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Held: Contempt not made out – Petition disposed with direction to pay ₹3,00,000 to widow of petitioner – Pension claim rejected – No further litigation to be entertained upon compliance [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 411 IPC – Theft Not Proved – Conviction Unsustainable – Appellant was convicted under Section 411 IPC for allegedly receiving stolen property after helping co-accused dispose of a dead body – However, both appellant and co-accused had been acquitted under Section 379 IPC for theft – Supreme Court held that conviction under Section 411 cannot survive absent proof of theft – Held: Property must first be established as stolen for Section 411 to apply – Mere possession of money without proof of theft or knowledge cannot sustain conviction. Acquittal. [Paras 15-16].

Burden of Proof – Presumption Under Section 114 of Evidence Act – Not Applicable Without Foundational Facts – High Court wrongly placed reverse burden on appellant to explain possession of cash – Supreme Court clarified that presumption under Section 114 illustration (a) is applicable only when theft is first proved – Held: Prosecution failed to establish foundational fact that recovered cash was stolen property – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 14-14.2].

Circumstantial Evidence – Failure to Establish Complete Chain – Prosecution’s Case Collapses – Case hinged entirely on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution failed to prove complete chain linking appellant to the stolen money – Confessional statement and recovery of Rs. 25,000 did not suffice to establish knowledge of theft – Held: In absence of direct evidence or unbroken chain, benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 13-14].

Judicial Approach – Concurrent Acquittal Under Section 379 IPC – Inconsistency in Conviction Under Section 411 – Trial Court and High Court acquitted both accused under theft charges but still convicted under Section 411 – Supreme Court found this contradictory – Held: Once theft not proved, offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property cannot be maintained [Paras 15.5-15.6].

Decision: Held: High Court's conviction of the appellant under Section 411 IPC is set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds stand discharged [Paras 17-19].

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings – Dismissal of Bank Officer – Violation of Natural Justice – Dismissal Quashed – The appellant, a retired officer of Vijaya Bank (now merged with Bank of Baroda), challenged his dismissal on grounds of breach of natural justice, specifically for non-furnishing of the preliminary inquiry report, failure to comply with Regulation 6(17) of the Vijaya Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981, and non-disclosure of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) recommendation that influenced the punishment – The Supreme Court held that while non-supply of the preliminary inquiry report did not cause prejudice, the failure to question the appellant on adverse circumstances under Regulation 6(17) and the reliance on an undisclosed CVC recommendation amounted to serious procedural violations – The dismissal order and High Court’s judgment upholding it were quashed – However, due to passage of time and the appellant's age, only limited relief in the form of gratuity-equivalent lump-sum was granted without full terminal benefits or back wages [Paras 1–6, 18–31, 44–73].

Preliminary Inquiry Report – Not Relied Upon – No Violation of Natural Justice – Held that the preliminary inquiry report need not be supplied if it was not relied upon in the final inquiry report – The appellant was allowed full cross-examination and the report was not used against him – No prejudice was caused [Paras 18–30].

Mandatory Procedure – Regulation 6(17) of Vijaya Bank Regulations – Failure to Question Charged Officer – Inquiry Vitiated – The Court held that Regulation 6(17), which mandates that the Inquiry Officer shall generally question the charged officer on the adverse circumstances if he has not examined himself, was not complied with – Such questioning is a mandatory procedural safeguard and failure to comply invalidated the inquiry – No requirement to show prejudice where natural justice is violated [Paras 31–56].

Natural Justice – No Need to Prove Prejudice – Violation of Procedural Safeguards is Sufficient – The Court reiterated the settled principle that where a rule of fair hearing is violated, especially under Article 14, prejudice is presumed – The High Court erred in requiring the appellant to show specific prejudice from non-questioning and non-disclosure – Violation itself is sufficient [Paras 1–6, 44–45].

Disciplinary Authority – CVC Recommendation Not Supplied – Punishment Based on Undisclosed Material – The disciplinary authority altered the proposed penalty of compulsory retirement to dismissal solely on the basis of the CVC’s advice – The report was not furnished to the appellant – The Court held this to be a violation of procedural fairness and set aside the dismissal on this ground as well [Paras 59–64].

Claim of Privilege – CVC Recommendation Not Protected – Must Be Disclosed – The Court rejected the bank’s claim that the CVC recommendation was privileged – Held: The document was not related to affairs of the State or national security and its disclosure was necessary for a fair hearing – Reliance on such undisclosed material is impermissible [Paras 65–70].

Relief – Dismissal Set Aside – Limited Monetary Relief Ordered – The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal order and quashed the High Court’s judgment – Considering the appellant’s age and time lapse, he was granted a lump sum equal to gratuity without interest – No full back wages or terminal benefits were allowed – Interest at 9% p.a. payable only if the amount is not disbursed within eight weeks [Paras 72–73].

Decision – Dismissal Quashed – High Court Judgment Set Aside – Appeal Allowed – The appeal was allowed and the High Court’s judgment confirming the dismissal was set aside – The Court directed limited monetary relief and left the question of continuation of disciplinary proceedings after superannuation open – No costs awarded [Paras 74–76].

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Mental Cruelty – Decree Affirmed – The marriage between the appellant and respondent was dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was affirmed by the High Court – Despite the appellant’s willingness to resume marital life, the respondent remained unwilling – The Supreme Court did not interfere with the findings on cruelty or the decree of divorce – Held: Divorce decree rightly upheld by the High Court and no merit found to reverse it [Paras 3.6–3.8, 13].

Permanent Alimony – Quantum Enhanced – One-Time Settlement of ₹50 Lakhs Ordered – The appellant challenged the ₹15,00,000/- alimony awarded by the Family Court and upheld by the High Court – On examining income affidavits and qualifications of both parties, the Supreme Court found the respondent capable of paying more and the appellant capable of some self-sustenance – Held: A just, fair, and reasonable one-time settlement would be ₹50,00,000/- to secure the appellant’s financial future [Paras 6–10, 13].

Financial Capacity – Consideration of Income and Prospects – Balanced Approach Adopted – The respondent, a doctor earning approximately ₹1.4 lakhs/month, had property and financial stability – The appellant, an M.Tech and LL.B graduate, claimed to be unemployed – Court held both factors must be balanced to determine reasonable alimony – Appellant not in acute economic hardship but entitled to a dignified standard of living post-divorce [Paras 7–9].

Installment Schedule – Court Directed Payment Timeline – The Court directed the enhanced amount of ₹50,00,000/- be paid in five equal monthly instalments from September 2025 to January 2026 – Appellant directed to provide bank details for remittance – Held: Payment structure will ensure timely and equitable compliance [Paras 11–12].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Divorce Decree Upheld – Alimony Enhanced – Supreme Court upheld the decree of divorce but modified the alimony awarded by increasing it from ₹15,00,000/- to ₹50,00,000/- as full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the marriage and litigation – Pending applications also disposed of [Para 13–14].

Criminal Law – Bail in Corruption and Conspiracy Case – Delay in Trial and Right to Liberty – Bail Granted - The appellant was incarcerated for nearly three years under charges of corruption and forgery under IPC and PC Act – Investigation completed, charge sheet filed, but charges not framed – Held: Continuing incarceration without framing of charges or examining witnesses violates principles of justice – Bail granted subject to trial court conditions and monitoring [Paras 1–6].

Sanction for Prosecution – Pending Sanction Not Bar to Bail – Partial Sanction Obtained – Held: Though sanction was granted against one appellant only, the pendency of sanction against others due to State Government’s inaction is not a ground to deny bail – The Court declined to enter into the merits of sanction at this stage .

Trial Court Directions – Monitoring of Trial Timeline Prior to Bail – Procedural Safeguards Ordered - Court directed the framing of charges within four weeks and recording of key witness depositions within two months – Bail to be granted thereafter, ensuring witness safety and trial participation – Non-cooperation or attempts to delay the trial shall be grounds for bail cancellation .

Public Office Restriction – Limited Participation Allowed – Held: Appellant shall not hold any public office during trial, except retaining his elected position as MLA in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly – Bail conditional upon non-interference with judicial process .

Maintainability of Review – Distinction Between Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC – Review Maintainable - Writ petition filed under Article 226 r/w Section 482 CrPC was decided ex parte without issuing notice to accused – High Court subsequently dismissed review petition as not maintainable, holding it was filed under Section 482 – Held: Since the original writ invoked Article 226, High Court had jurisdiction to entertain review – Review petition restored for reconsideration on merits.

Natural Justice – Hearing Not Granted to Accused – Order Set Aside – Appellants were arrayed as respondents in writ proceedings but were not served or heard before the High Court directed transfer of investigation – Held: Failure to issue notice vitiated proceedings – Matter remanded for hearing afresh on review petition.

Deemed Dismissal of SLP – Not Bar to Review – Procedural Fairness – Earlier SLP was withdrawn with liberty to approach High Court – Appellants filed review which was erroneously dismissed as not maintainable – Held: Liberty granted by Supreme Court allowed review route – Interests of justice require High Court to adjudicate on merits.

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Order dated 28.11.2024 dismissing review petition set aside – Review Petition No. 23105/2024 restored to High Court’s file – High Court directed to hear all parties and decide in accordance with law – Liberty reserved to appellants to approach Supreme Court again, if needed .

Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide – High Court Quashing of FIR – No Prima Facie Case Made – Dismissal of Appeal – The appellant challenged the High Court’s decision quashing the FIR registered against officials and administrators of Dadra and Nagar Haveli who were named in the suicide note of a seven-time Member of Parliament – The Supreme Court held that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not amount to abetment of suicide as there was no proximate or specific act of instigation or mens rea established – The suicide note was viewed with suspicion due to its timing and content, which introduced new allegations not raised before the Parliamentary Committee – FIR quashing upheld [Paras 1–6, 22–31, 33–40].

Abetment – Section 306 IPC – Requirement of Mens Rea and Proximate Cause – Allegations Insufficient – The Court reiterated that for abetment to suicide, there must be a clear and proximate link between the accused’s conduct and the suicide, supported by evidence of instigation or intentional aid – Mere allegations of harassment, insults, or humiliation, without a specific actionable event or intention to provoke suicide, do not attract Section 306 IPC [Paras 13–20, 22–24].

Suicide Note – Allegations First Made – No Prior Record – Note Deemed Unreliable – The suicide note introduced serious allegations like extortion and forced takeover for the first time – These were neither included in earlier complaints nor stated before the Privileges Committee – The delay in recovering and reporting the suicide note, and the lack of handwriting verification, led the Court to treat the note with suspicion – Held: Cannot be solely relied upon to prosecute [Paras 29, 35–36].

Privileges Committee Proceedings – No Mention of Core Allegations – Undermines Credibility – The Court noted that during prior Privileges Committee proceedings, the deceased MP made no mention of the Administrator or of extortion claims – The complaints focused on protocol violations and administrative discourtesies – The suicide, occurring 10 days after the Committee took up the matter, lacked any proximate triggering event [Paras 3–4, 29–33].

Mens Rea – Mental Element of Abetment – Victim’s Sensitivity Not Sufficient – The Court emphasized that personal sensitivity or desperation of the deceased cannot substitute for the accused’s mens rea – Abetment requires deliberate and conscious conduct capable of pushing a person to suicide – Generalized harassment or strained relations do not meet the threshold [Paras 19–24].

Presumption Under Evidence Act – Section 113A and 113B Not Applicable – The statutory presumptions under Sections 113A and 113B are limited to specific contexts such as dowry death or suicide by a woman within seven years of marriage – Held: No general presumption of abetment arises merely because a suicide note names individuals, especially in the absence of proximate conduct or intent [Paras 25–28].

Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Valid Exercise – No Case Made Out – The High Court rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings where the FIR and material on record failed to disclose a cognizable offence – Supreme Court upheld the view that the complaint was based on conjecture, hearsay, and lacked foundational material for prosecution [Paras 38–41].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – FIR Quashing Confirmed – The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the appellant and upheld the High Court’s decision quashing the FIR for abetment to suicide – Held: No case made out against the accused under Section 306 IPC or any related provision – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 41–42].

Dishonour of Cheque – Illegality of Underlying Transaction – Prima Facie No Legally Enforceable Debt – The petitioner relied on Kerala High Court’s ruling in C.V. Rajan vs. Illikkal Ramesan (2015 SCC OnLine Ker 6780), arguing that even if an agreement was illegal under Section 23 of the Contract Act, cheque dishonour proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act could still be maintained – Supreme Court held prima facie that such amount cannot be treated as a “legally enforceable debt” under Section 138 – Kerala High Court’s view may not align with statutory provisions – Held: Notice issued to respondent, returnable in six weeks [Paras 2–3].

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Irretrievable Breakdown – Article 142 of Constitution – Divorce Granted – Appeal against High Court’s judgment which set aside divorce decree granted by Family Court on grounds of cruelty – Parties have lived separately since 2010 with no prospect of reconciliation – Supreme Court held that the marriage had broken down irretrievably – Noted that husband remarried in 2017 and couple had no subsisting matrimonial relationship – Held: Divorce decree granted under Article 142 of the Constitution – Permanent alimony of ₹1.25 crore awarded to wife and son [Paras 2-9].

Cruelty – Grounds for Divorce – Acts of Third Party – Not Attributable to Spouse – Family Court granted divorce based on rude utterances of wife’s father – High Court correctly held that such conduct could not be attributed to the wife – However, long separation and failed reconciliation attempts warranted exercise of constitutional power [Para 3.7].

Permanent Alimony – Lump Sum Payment – ₹1.25 Crore Awarded – Instalments Directed – Appellant had not provided financial support for years – Considering financial status and circumstances, permanent alimony of ₹1,25,00,000/- awarded – To be paid in five quarterly instalments – Any default would recall the order and forfeit amounts paid [Paras 8-11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment dated 24.08.2018 set aside – Marriage dissolved by Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 – Permanent alimony of ₹1.25 crore to be paid in five equal quarterly instalments beginning 15.09.2025 – Default would result in recall of this order and forfeiture of amount already paid [Paras 9-12].