Charge Sheet Quashing – Allegations of Marital Cruelty and Dowry Demands – Appeal by Mahalakshmi & Ors. Against the charge sheet for offenses under IPC Sections 498A, 506 and Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 3, 4 – Allegations deemed vague and general without specific evidence against appellants.

Residency and Absence of Specific Allegations – Appellant No. 1, Mahalakshmi, residing in Canada, not in India during the alleged incidents – Appellants 2, 3, and 4 residing separately from the marital home of the complainant – Absence of specific details constituting cruelty.

Precedents on Vagueness in Allegations – References to cases emphasizing the need for specific allegations and evidence in marital cruelty cases – Kahkashan Kausar, K. Subba Rao, Rajesh Sharma, Arnesh Kumar, Geeta Mehrotra, Preeti Gupta cited.

Decision – Criminal proceedings against appellants quashed due to lack of specific allegations and evidence – Clarification that trial court may take action under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if new evidence emerges.

Lease Agreement and Wrongful Occupation – The property, originally leased to the appellants by predecessors of ATM Constructions, was subject to legal disputes post lease expiry on 31.12.1997. ATM Constructions sought possession and later, damages for wrongful occupation from 01.01.1998 till 31.12.2019, and future damages from 01.01.2020 till possession was handed over in June 2022. [Paras 3, 5, 9]

Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. – The appellants sought rejection of the plaint claiming the suit for damages was not maintainable as it was filed after a suit for possession without claiming damages. The High Court dismissed this application. [Paras 2, 6, 10]

Distinct Causes of Action – The Court held that suits for possession and for damages for use and occupation are based on distinct causes of action. The second suit for damages is therefore maintainable. [Paras 16-17]

Time-Barred Claims – The appellants can contest if part of the claim in the suit is time-barred, but the entire claim cannot be deemed as such. [Para 17]

Distinguishing Previous Judgments – The Court distinguished the case from Virgo Industries (Eng.) Private Limited v. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited, noting the difference in the causes of action in both scenarios. [Para 18]

Decision – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision and holding that the suit for damages for wrongful occupation is maintainable. [Para 19]

Rejection of Suit in High Court's Review - Challenge to High Court's order allowing review application, which led to the dismissal of the suit for specific performance based on MoU dated 31.08.1998 - Application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. by respondent No. 1 granted, dismissing appellant's suit. [Paras 2, 4]

Facts of the Case - Dispute regarding the sale of property under MoU between appellant and respondent - Initial injunction suit filed by appellant due to respondent's attempt to sell the property, despite pending litigation among respondent's family members - Subsequent suit for specific performance filed by appellant upon learning about the resolution of family litigation. [Paras 3, 5, 6, 7]

Application of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. - Consideration of application under this rule limited to pleadings in the suit - High Court found error in allowing review application based on materials outside the plaint, leading to the rejection of appellant's suit. [Para 5, 8, 16, 17-19]

Earlier Suits and Current Claim - Differences in cause of action between earlier injunction suits and the present suit for specific performance - Earlier suits aimed to prevent the creation of third-party rights, while the present suit sought enforcement of MoU post-resolution of family litigation. [Paras 6, 7, 13, 14, 23, 24]

Exclusion of External Evidence in Plaint Rejection - In deciding on Order VII Rule 11(d) application, external evidence, including prior agreements and MoU, not considered - Sole reliance on averments in the current plaint. [Paras 16, 25, 26]

Decision - Appeal allowed - High Court's order in the review application set aside - Case remanded for trial, with the option for the Trial Court to treat the issue of suit maintainability as preliminary. [Para 28]

Property Dispute - Challenge to Sale Deed - Suit filed by the appellant's predecessor-in-interest against the first sale deed registered in favor of another party - Allegations of minor's property being sold without court permission and for the minor's need and welfare - Trial Court decreed the suit, which was upheld by the first Appellate Court, but reversed by the High Court in Second Appeal. [Para 1-4]

Date of Birth - Discrepancy in the appellant's date of birth - High Court relied on oral evidence, while the appellant produced a certificate from Doon School showing the date of birth as 16.08.1951 - Suit's timeliness under Section 80 C.P.C. disputed - High Court's reliance on oral evidence questioned. [Para 9-10]

Ownership of Property - Lack of documentary evidence to establish the appellant's right to the property in question - Challenge to a sale deed registered in 1956 after 16 years - Absence of transfer in the appellant's name - Suggestion of a possible attempt to extract additional money from the State, which had purchased the property from the first buyer. [Para 10-11]

Property Sale Consideration - Property potentially sold for the child's education and welfare - Consideration mentioned in the second sale deed at ₹14,784/- - Burden of proof on the plaintiff challenging a sale transaction entered into 16 years prior. [Para 11-12]

Protection of Sale Transaction - Reference to Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the State's claim of due diligence in the sale transaction - Lack of evidence presented by the plaintiff to rebut the State's position. [Para 13]

Dismissal of Appeal - No grounds for interference in the present appeal found - Appeal dismissed. [Para 15]

Jurisdictional Overreach of Lokayukta – Upa Lokayukta’s order for correction in revenue records and tax collection – Held as exceeding its jurisdiction under Section 12 of the 1999 Act, which only allows recommendations to remedy injustice or hardship, not issuing direct orders. [Paras 5, 7, 9-11, 13]

Revenue Record Correction – Original complaint by respondent No. 1 for correction of error in revenue records – Request declined by Additional Tehsildar, no further legal remedy pursued by respondent before approaching Lokayukta. [Paras 4, 8, 12]

Precedent on Lokayukta’s Powers – Reference to Kerala High Court judgments in Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector and District Collector v. Registrar, Kerala Lokayukta, affirming Lokayukta’s recommendatory jurisdiction, not supervisory or appellate authority over statutory bodies. [Para 9, 10]

High Court and Upa Lokayukta Orders Set Aside – Supreme Court sets aside orders of High Court and Upa Lokayukta, deems them legally unsustainable due to jurisdictional overreach. Respondent No. 1 advised to seek appropriate legal remedy for correction of revenue records under relevant statutes. [Paras 13, 14]

Criminal Appeal – Jurisdictional Competence for Trial – Discussion on appropriate judicial forum for trial of appellant charged under IPC and other acts – Concerns over trial by Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate with limited sentencing power for offences punishable with life imprisonment or 10 years imprisonment under Section 409 IPC – Analysis of jurisdiction under Cr.PC and IPC provisions. [Para 1, 3, 17, 22]

Right to Speedy Trial – Fair Trial – Emphasis on right to speedy trial as an essential component of fair trial – Reference to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and other cases highlighting importance of speedy trial for preserving fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. [Para 4-5, 10, 19-20]

Jurisdictional Analysis – Courts under Cr.PC – Examination of Sections 26, 29, 323, 325 of Cr.PC in context of trial jurisdiction – Determination of Court of Session as suitable forum for trial of offences with severe punishment like life imprisonment. [Para 7-9, 11-16, 18, 21, 23-24]

Committal to Court of Session – Directive for committal of appellant’s case to Court of Session under Section 323 Cr.PC – Discussion on necessity of trial before court with competent jurisdiction for ensuring a fair trial. [Para 25-28]

Admissibility of Unstamped Agreement to Sell – Appellant contends that an unstamped agreement to sell dated 04.02.1988 should be admissible as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The key question is whether Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, barring the admissibility of unstamped instruments, applies to this agreement. [Paras 1-7]

Interpretation of Section 35 of the Stamp Act – High Court upheld the review order and the constitutional validity of Section 35. Supreme Court analyzes Section 35 in the context of the agreement’s execution date, determining whether the agreement was chargeable with duty at the time of its execution. [Paras 8-14]

Stamp Duty and Execution Date – Supreme Court notes the significance of the execution date for determining stamp duty. The Court observes that the agreement, executed in 1988, was not subject to stamp duty based on the provisions of the Stamp Act and its Schedules at that time. This finding is crucial for assessing the applicability of Section 35 to the agreement. [Paras 15-28]

Secondary Evidence under Evidence Act – The Court elaborates on the principles governing secondary evidence as per the Evidence Act. It underscores the necessity of primary evidence and delineates the specific conditions under which secondary evidence is permissible, focusing on the importance of proving the unavailability of the original document and ensuring the authenticity of the secondary evidence. [Paras 29-35]

Supreme Court’s Decision – Concluding that the document dated 04.02.1988 was not chargeable with duty, the Supreme Court allows the appeal. The Court rules that the document is not barred under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, permitting the Plaintiff to present secondary evidence of the agreement to sell. The decision underscores the nuanced application of the Stamp Act and the Evidence Act in determining the admissibility of documents in legal proceedings. [Paras 36-44]

Appellant's Involvement in Money Laundering – Alleged acquisition of tainted properties using proceeds of crime – Question of whether the appellant, not an accused in the predicate offence, can be implicated under PMLA. [Paras 6, 16-17]

Criminal Conspiracy and Predicate Offence – Interpretation of Section 120-B of IPC in the context of PMLA – Held that Section 120-B becomes a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy is to commit an offence already included in the PMLA schedule. [Paras 18-25, 27e]

Property Transactions and Source of Funds – Scrutiny of appellant's acquisition of properties and financial capacity – Determination of whether properties were acquired using proceeds of crime deferred to trial. [Paras 17, 27d]

Schedule to PMLA – Interpretation and applicability – Not all offences generating proceeds of crime are included in the PMLA schedule; strict construction necessary for penal statutes. [Paras 20-25, 27e]

Applicability of PMLA – Conditions precedent for offence under Section 3 of PMLA – Existence of a scheduled offence and proceeds of crime related to that offence. [Paras 11-15]

Benefit of Acquittal in Predicate Offence – Impact on proceedings under PMLA – Accused under PMLA may benefit from acquittal/discharge in predicate offence. [Paras 16, 27b]

Decision:Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 27th September 2022 quashed and set aside, and the complaint against the appellant under PMLA also quashed.

Prolonged Incarceration without Trial Progress – Appellant in custody since 9th April 2021, with minimal trial progress despite High Court's order for completion within six months – Only 5 out of 25 witnesses examined – Issue of prolonged incarceration without trial conclusion highlighted.

High Court's Inconsistent Bail Grant – High Court's recognition of the appellant's entitlement to bail, yet only granting interim bail for 45 days – Illegality of granting bail for limited duration when accused entitled to regular bail – High Court's practice of granting interim/short duration bail despite finding entitlement for regular bail observed in multiple cases.

Right to Liberty and Illegal Bail Orders – Granting bail for limited duration deemed illegal when the accused is entitled to bail – Such orders infringe upon the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21 and impose additional burdens on the litigant.

Supreme Court's Decision – Appeal allowed – Modification of High Court's order to grant regular bail to the appellant till the final disposal of the case, maintaining the same terms and conditions as in the impugned order.