Civil Law – Title and Possession – Injunction Suit Against Encroachment – Appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction against respondents, claiming ownership of land through a registered sale deed dated 23.08.1988 – Respondents contended that a portion of land (1¼ cents) remained with the original owner and was later settled in favor of the Gram Panchayat – Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the disputed portion fell outside the plaintiff’s sale deed – First Appellate Court reversed the decision, finding that the defendants failed to establish their claim under a valid settlement deed – High Court, in second appeal, set aside the decree on the ground that the suit was not framed for declaration of title – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reappreciating findings of fact under Section 100 CPC and restored the decree in favor of the plaintiff [Paras 2-6, 12].

Title and Ownership – Importance of Boundaries in Sale Deed – Appellant relied on the sale deed (Exhibit-A1) and Commissioner’s Report to establish ownership – Supreme Court noted that the sale deed clearly described the boundaries, and no portion was retained by the original owner – Defendants failed to produce a legally valid document proving that the disputed portion was settled in favor of the Panchayat – High Court wrongly disregarded the First Appellate Court’s findings and failed to appreciate that the defendants’ documents (Exhibits-B1 to B8) did not convey legal ownership to the Panchayat [Paras 7-11].

Second Appeal – Scope Under Section 100 CPC – Supreme Court reiterated that a High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a substantial question of law – The High Court erred by reappreciating evidence and reversing well-reasoned factual conclusions of the First Appellate Court – The absence of a declaration prayer was not raised before the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court and could not be a ground for non-suiting the plaintiff at the second appellate stage [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal (MD) No. 437 of 2010 set aside – Decree of the First Appellate Court restored – No order as to costs [Para 12].
 

Employment Law - Cancellation of Recruitment Process – Right to Appointment – No Indefeasible Right – Cancellation Justified – The mere inclusion of candidates in a selection list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment – The government retains the discretion to cancel the recruitment process if found irregular, provided the decision is bona fide – The decision to cancel the select list was not arbitrary but based on valid concerns regarding reservation policy violations and district-wise representation anomalies [Paras 24-27, 42].

Judicial Review – Scope – Wednesbury Unreasonableness and Proportionality Test – Courts should not interfere with administrative decisions unless they are arbitrary, mala fide, or violative of constitutional principles – The decision to cancel the recruitment process was a proportionate response to the irregularities found, making interference unwarranted – High Court erred in acting as an appellate authority rather than applying judicial review principles [Paras 22-26, 37-42].

Reservation Policy – Non-Compliance – Justification for Cancellation – The selection process failed to adhere to the reservation policy – Meritorious candidates from reserved categories were not accommodated in the general category, leading to deprivation of rightful candidates – This violated established legal precedents and justified government intervention [Paras 31-33].

Successor Government’s Authority – Cancellation of Prior Government’s Decisions – A successor government has the right to review and cancel recruitment processes initiated by the previous administration if irregularities are found – This does not amount to arbitrary action but ensures fairness in public employment – The Court upheld the government’s discretion in this case [Paras 36-37].

Relief Granted – Fresh Recruitment to be Conducted – Age Relaxation for Affected Candidates – The Court directed the government to conduct a fresh recruitment process with proper rules or administrative instructions – Affected candidates were granted age relaxation and minor physical efficiency relaxations under Article 142 to ensure fairness [Paras 63-65].

Decision – Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Ruling – Government’s Cancellation of Recruitment Process Upheld – The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Gauhati High Court, ruling that the government’s decision to cancel the recruitment process was justified – The process was found to be tainted with irregularities and non-compliance with reservation policies – The government was directed to conduct a fresh recruitment process with due fairness and transparency – The respondents were granted age and minor physical efficiency relaxations under Article 142 if they chose to apply again [Paras 52-65].
 

Criminal Law – Rape of Minor Daughter – Conviction Under IPC and POCSO Act – Appellant convicted for raping his 9-year-old daughter – Trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act – High Court modified the sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life – Supreme Court upheld the conviction but ruled that the sentence should not extend till the remainder of the appellant’s natural life [Paras 1-5, 16, 23].

Applicability of POCSO Act Over IPC – Sentencing Under Special Law – Appellant argued that POCSO Act should override IPC, citing Section 42A of POCSO Act – Supreme Court held that Section 42 of POCSO Act allows sentencing under IPC if it prescribes a greater punishment – Court rejected the argument that POCSO Act’s lesser punishment should prevail over IPC – Conviction under both IPC and POCSO Act held valid [Paras 17-22].

Modification of Sentence – Life Imprisonment Interpretation – High Court imposed life imprisonment till the remainder of the appellant’s natural life – Supreme Court held that such a direction cannot be imposed in an appeal against conviction unless sought through enhancement proceedings – Sentence modified to life imprisonment with no stipulation of imprisonment till natural life – Fine of Rs. 5,00,000 imposed, payable to the victim [Paras 24-32].

Decision – Appeal partially allowed – Conviction under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act upheld – Sentence modified to life imprisonment without specifying remainder of natural life – Fine of Rs. 5,00,000 imposed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 33-34].
 

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].
 

Criminal Law – Bail Granted for Examination Fraud – State’s Appeal Against Bail – Respondents accused of engaging in a recruitment examination fraud by arranging a dummy candidate – Trial Court denied bail, citing serious disruption to the public examination system – Rajasthan High Court granted bail on grounds of lack of criminal antecedents, absence of appointments based on the exam, and completion of investigation – Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider the broader impact on society and quashed the bail order [Paras 1-6, 9-12].

Impact on Public Trust in Recruitment Process – Court emphasized that fraudulent practices in government recruitment exams erode public confidence – Given the high competition for government jobs, any compromise in exam integrity affects thousands of candidates – Held: Actions of the accused, if proven, undermine faith in the system and warrant stricter judicial scrutiny [Paras 10-11].

Principles for Setting Aside Bail Orders – Supreme Court distinguished between cancellation of bail (requiring supervening circumstances) and setting aside an erroneous bail order – Cited precedents where bail was revoked due to failure of courts to consider relevant factors – Held: High Court erred in granting bail without appreciating the gravity of the offence and its societal impact [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Bail order set aside – Respondents directed to surrender within two weeks – Liberty granted to reapply for bail after key prosecution witnesses are examined – Pending applications, if any, disposed of [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Preliminary Stage of Investigation – Permissibility of High Court Interference – High Court declined to quash FIR observing that investigation was at infancy stage and liberty was granted to produce documents before the investigating agency – Held: Such approach is unheard of and mechanical – Court is duty-bound to examine the plea for quashing on merits even at the preliminary stage – Mechanical refusal to quash without considering the merits amounts to miscarriage of justice.

High Court's Approach – Requirement to Apply Mind on Merits – Petition restored – Supreme Court found that High Court failed to consider the petition for quashing of FIR on merits – Held: Petition restored to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits without being influenced by previous observations.

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Impugned order set aside – Criminal O.P. No. 7963 of 2024 restored to file of the Madras High Court to be considered afresh on 24th March 2025 – All questions left open for the High Court to decide.

Criminal Law – Transfer of Criminal Cases – Negotiable Instruments Act – Territorial Jurisdiction for Cheque Dishonour Cases – Complaint Validly Filed in Chandigarh - The petitioner contended that no cause of action arose in Chandigarh and that the complaint should have been filed in Coimbatore—Court held that under Section 142(2)(a) of the NI Act, the jurisdiction to file a complaint vests in the court where the payee’s bank branch is situated—Held: Kotak Mahindra Bank’s collection center in Chandigarh conferred jurisdiction on the courts there—Decision: Transfer petition dismissed; complaint to proceed in Chandigarh [Paras 3, 58-63].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 142(2) – Court examined precedents, including Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129 and Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh (2016) 2 SCC 75 – Section 142(2)(a) clarifies that jurisdiction lies where the cheque is presented for collection at the bank of the payee – Explanation to Section 142(2)(a) deems the cheque to be presented where the payee maintains an account – The enactment of Section 142-A further validates the territorial jurisdiction of courts based on cheque collection location [Paras 14-27, 56-62].

Transfer of Cases – Principles under Section 406 CrPC – Transfer under Section 406 CrPC requires proof of circumstances “expedient for the ends of justice” – Mere inconvenience to the accused in attending proceedings is not a valid ground for transfer – Court must balance various factors, including comparative hardships, risk of influence on witnesses, and public interest – Petitioner’s reliance on convenience and language barrier was insufficient to warrant transfer [Paras 28-35, 47-49, 64-65].

Judicial Precedents – Limited Scope of Transfer in Cheque Bounce Cases – Court relied on Yogesh Upadhaya v. Atlanta Ltd. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 170), which affirmed the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the N.I. Act does not override Section 406 CrPC – Emphasized that jurisdiction in cheque bounce cases is determined by statutory provisions and cannot be overridden merely based on party preferences – Rajkumar Sabu v. Sabu Trade Pvt. Ltd. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 378) reiterated that overlapping civil and criminal proceedings do not justify transfer – Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2011) 1 SCC 307 held that transfer should be ordered only in exceptional cases where fair trial is genuinely at risk [Paras 36-46, 50-55].

Decision – Transfer Petition Dismissed – No Grounds for Transfer – Petition dismissed – No substantial grounds made out for transfer under Section 406 CrPC – Held: Chandigarh court has jurisdiction as per Section 142(2)(a) N.I. Act – Petitioner's claim of inconvenience and language barrier not sufficient for transfer – Open to petitioner to seek exemption from personal appearance or attend proceedings virtually [Paras 66-68].
 

Election Law – Discrepancy in Vote Counting – Justification for Recount – Appellant, a candidate for ‘Gram Pradhan,’ challenged election results due to inconsistencies in votes cast and counted – Polling booths 43, 44, and 45 recorded 1,194 votes cast as per oral communication from the Presiding Officer, but official Form 46 showed 1,213 votes – Allegation that 19 extra votes were illegally inserted – High Court set aside the order for recount, citing lack of documentary evidence – Supreme Court held that unexplained discrepancies in vote count justify recount to maintain election integrity [Paras 4-7, 14-18].

Electoral Fairness – Missing Election Records – Adverse Inference – Appellant sought official records under the Right to Information Act, 2005 – Assistant Election Officer failed to produce the ‘Matpatra Lekha’ and Presiding Officer’s Diary, citing inability to locate them – Supreme Court held that the missing records raise serious doubts regarding electoral transparency and warrant recounting – Held: Electoral documents must be preserved and made available for scrutiny in case of disputes [Paras 5.3, 16-17].

Legal Framework for Recount – Standards Under Election Law – Court reiterated that recount orders must satisfy two conditions:
(1) Material facts must establish specific irregularities, and
(2) There must be prima facie evidence to justify recounting – Cited precedents where recount was ordered only in cases of concrete discrepancies – Applied these principles to hold that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s recount order was legally sound and High Court erred in interfering [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Writ-C No. 35734 of 2022 set aside – Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s order for recounting votes in Booth Nos. 43, 44, and 45 restored – Registrar General of the High Court directed to ensure compliance – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 19-20].
 

Criminal Law – Challenge Registration of FIR - Section 156(3) CrPC – Mandatory Compliance with Section 154(1) and (3) CrPC – Non-Compliance Found – The complainant did not exhaust remedies under Section 154(1) and (3) before invoking Section 156(3) – The requirement of prior applications and averments was not satisfied – Application under Section 156(3) not maintainable [Paras 5-8].

Misuse of Section 156(3) – Affidavit Requirement as Safeguard – Court reiterated that applications under Section 156(3) must be supported by affidavits to prevent casual and vexatious litigation – Priyanka Srivastava and Babu Venkatesh decisions reaffirmed – No affidavit accompanied the complaint in this case [Paras 5-6].

Prior Complaint to Higher Police Officer – Not Equivalent to Section 154(1) or 154(3) Compliance – Forwarding of complaint to Economic Offences Wing was not sufficient compliance with Section 154 – Complainant failed to approach Officer Incharge of Police Station directly or under Section 154(3) – Trial Court and High Court erred in ignoring this mandatory requirement [Paras 7-9].

Binding Precedent Ignored – Trial Court and High Court Failed to Apply Priyanka Srivastava Ratio – Both Courts failed to enforce the mandatory procedural safeguards laid down by Supreme Court for complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC – Orders liable to be quashed [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – FIR and Further Proceedings Quashed – The Court set aside the Magistrate’s order directing registration of FIR as well as the High Court’s order dismissing the quashing petition – Liberty reserved to the complainant to take recourse to proper remedies under Section 154 CrPC – Appeal allowed [Paras 9-11].