Criminal Law – Quashing - Multiple FIRs – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Petitioners accused of misappropriation of refund amount – Three separate proceedings initiated on identical facts – Two proceedings either stayed or withdrawn – Final report in FIR No. 396/2025 concluded no evidence against petitioners – Held: Initiation of multiple criminal cases on same cause of action impermissible – Proceedings except Tajganj FIR closed [Paras 1-7].

Quashing of FIR – Final Report Filed – No Arrest – Chargesheet in Agra case (FIR 396/2025) concluded allegations not substantiated – Petitioners not to be arrested – Directed to appear before jurisdictional court and be granted bail on same day – Recognized that continuation of prosecution cannot result in custodial harassment in absence of incriminating material [Paras 5-8].

Corporate Insolvency – Complainant Representation – Complainant company undergoing insolvency – Interim Resolution Professional impleaded – IRP permitted to represent complainant and summon former officials for trial if required [Paras 4, 9].

Judicial Comity – Proceedings in Different Jurisdictions – Parallel complaints in Delhi and Agra – Delhi proceedings stayed or treated as not pressed – Court directed closure of Karkardooma proceedings and disposal of pending criminal revision as not pressed – Upheld principle that litigants should not harass opponents through multiple jurisdictions [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Special Leave Petition disposed of – Petitioners granted protection from arrest – Directed to appear before jurisdictional court and be granted bail – All other criminal proceedings on same facts closed – IRP allowed to participate in proceedings [Paras 7-10].

Education Law – Issuance of Degree and Marksheets – Clerical Error – MB University Investigation – Appellant completed BA.LLB. (2017–2022) at Manav Bharti University and passed all exams – University failed to issue marksheets for 5th to 10th semesters and degree due to mismatch in admission disclosure list, despite appellant’s name being in internal green register – Disclosure list erroneously carried another student's name against her admission number – Supreme Court held: Appellant was bona fide student – Denial of documents caused grave hardship – Delay of over two years unjustified – Appellant cannot be punished for University's error – High Court erred in relegating her to alternative remedy [Paras 2–21].

University Accountability – Duty to Maintain Accurate Records – University admitted clerical error and submitted affidavit acknowledging mistake – Held: Since facts were undisputed and supported by affidavit and internal records, relegation to civil remedy unnecessary – Supreme Court directed University to issue pending documents within four weeks [Paras 16–22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – MB University directed to issue marksheets for 5th to 10th semesters, degree, and all relevant documents to appellant within four weeks [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Double Murder – Acquittal – Appellant alleged to be driver of vehicle used by shooters in twin murders – Conviction by Trial Court affirmed by High Court – Supreme Court found evidence of key witnesses (PW-7 and PW-10) against appellant to be inconsistent and lacking – No overt act or recovery attributable to appellant – Conviction set aside [Paras 3-8, 11].

Evidence Act – Witness Credibility – PW-7 and PW-10 alleged appellant drove vehicle, but failed to implicate him in original police statements under Section 161 CrPC – Testimony regarding dragging of victim introduced for first time during trial – Court held omissions were fatal to prosecution case against appellant [Paras 7-8].

Criminal Procedure – Section 319 CrPC – Appellant not originally named – Later summoned under Section 319 CrPC – Defense witness DW-1 (DSP) testified appellant was found innocent in initial investigation – DW-2 (owner of vehicle) confirmed vehicle not entrusted to appellant – Absence of link to vehicle or scene of crime [Paras 7, 9-10].

Gang Rivalry – Animosity and Cross-Litigation – Evidence of ongoing gang rivalry and false implications between families of accused and deceased – History of narcotic raids and mutual enmity undermined credibility of prosecution’s narrative – Court declined to uphold conviction based on vague, delayed statements [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellant set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – If in custody, to be released forthwith – If on bail, bail bonds to stand cancelled – Judgment limited only to appellant [Paras 12-13].

Public Auction – Highest Bid – Arbitrary Cancellation – Impermissibility – Industrial plot measuring 3150 sq. mtrs auctioned by Ghaziabad Development Authority through two-bid system – Appellant’s technical and financial bids accepted – Appellant declared highest bidder with bid 15.23% above reserve price – Auction subsequently cancelled on ground that higher prices were fetched for smaller plots in same scheme – Held, cancellation based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations – Expectation of a higher price cannot justify cancellation of an otherwise valid auction [Paras 23–28, 32].

Administrative Law – Article 14 – Arbitrariness in State Action – State instrumentality cancelling auction without fraud, collusion or illegality in process – Comparison of bid for large plot with bids of much smaller plots held arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory – Action violates Article 14 – State authorities must act fairly, transparently and consistently in auction matters [Paras 27–29].

Public Auction – Reserve Price – Sanctity of Process – Uniform reserve price fixed for both smaller plots and subject large plot owing to lower demand for large plots – Bid higher than reserve price crystallises rights and obligations of parties – Once highest bid accepted and no infirmity found, authority under legal obligation to proceed with allotment [Paras 25–27].

Tender Conditions – Rewriting After Bid Opening – Prohibited – Ground of “low bid compared to smaller plots” not mentioned in auction brochure – Introducing new criteria after opening of bids amounts to rewriting tender conditions – Such post-auction benchmarking held impermissible in law [Paras 11–14, 23].

Legitimate Expectation – Right to Fair Treatment – Though no indefeasible right to allotment arises merely by being highest bidder – Highest bidder has right to non-arbitrary, fair and reasonable treatment – Cancellation without notice or hearing and on irrelevant grounds defeats legitimate expectation [Paras 14, 21, 29].

Natural Justice – Cancellation Without Notice – Financial bid cancelled behind the back of the appellant – Mere refund of earnest money does not cure illegality – Absence of show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing reinforces arbitrariness [Paras 14, 28–29].

Judicial Review – Auction / Tender Matters – Scope – Courts ordinarily show restraint and give “fair play in the joints” to State in contractual matters – However, where decision is arbitrary, irrational or based on irrelevant considerations, judicial interference warranted – Present case falls within exception justifying interference [Paras 16–18, 28].

Precedent – Eva Agro Feeds Applied – Reaffirmed principle that mere expectation of securing a higher price in re-auction is no ground to cancel a valid auction – Arbitrary cancellation erodes sanctity and credibility of auction process [Paras 22, 28, 32].

High Court – Error in Dismissing Writ Petitions – High Court erred in holding that appellant had no enforceable right merely because allotment letter was not issued – Failed to distinguish between absence of indefeasible right and right to fair, non-arbitrary treatment – Impugned orders unsustainable [Paras 19, 27–29].

Relief – Directions Issued – Cancellation of auction quashed – High Court orders set aside – Appellant directed to re-deposit earnest money – GDA directed to issue allotment letter and conclude auction process within stipulated time [Paras 32–33].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned orders of Allahabad High Court dated 24.05.2024 and 15.07.2024 set aside – Cancellation of appellant’s bid quashed – GDA directed to allot plot to appellant upon re-deposit of earnest money.

IBC - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Section 7 – Application by Assignee Creditor – Rejected – UV Asset Reconstruction Company filed a Section 7 application against Electrosteel Castings Ltd. (ECL), asserting it was a guarantor for debt availed by Electrosteel Steels Ltd. (ESL) – Application rejected by NCLT and NCLAT on grounds that Clause 2.2 of Deed of Undertaking did not constitute a contract of guarantee – Supreme Court upheld rejection – Held: Clause 2.2 merely obligated ECL to arrange infusion of funds into borrower ESL and lacked elements of a guarantee under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act – There was no unambiguous promise to the creditor to discharge the debt upon default [Paras 17–25, 1–16].

Contract Law – Guarantee – Requirements under Section 126 ICA – Clause 2.2 of the Deed of Undertaking did not fulfill essential ingredients: no direct promise to creditor, no liability to discharge borrower’s debt – Payment of ₹38 crores by ECL held voluntary, not pursuant to a contractual obligation – Held: “See to it” obligations are not sufficient to constitute a statutory guarantee under Indian law [Paras 19–24].

Insolvency Resolution – Effect of Resolution Plan – Residual Debt – Claim against Third Parties – SREI had accepted Resolution Plan and received equity in lieu of balance debt – Argument that debt stood extinguished rejected – Clause 3.2(ix) of Resolution Plan specifically preserved rights of financial creditors against third parties including existing promoters – Reduction in share value post-resolution led to significant haircut, affirming residual unsatisfied debt – Held: Resolution Plan did not extinguish liability of third-party sureties or security providers [Paras 18–24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Deed of Undertaking did not constitute a guarantee – No bar on claims against ECL due to approval of Resolution Plan – Findings of NCLT and NCLAT affirmed – No costs awarded [Paras 25–26].

Contempt of Court – Non-Compliance with Supreme Court Directions – Payment of Arrears – Petitioners alleged willful breach of Supreme Court’s order dated 16.07.2024 requiring the State of West Bengal to comply with the Calcutta High Court’s judgment dated 03.09.2020 – Alleged that relief was not extended to all eligible part-time contractual teachers despite clear directions – Supreme Court noted admission by State’s counsel that opportunity of hearing was not granted and records from concerned schools were not called before rejecting representations – Held: Petitioners permitted to file fresh representations – Secretary, School Education Department, directed to summon records, grant hearing, and pass reasoned order within four months [Paras 1–14].

Service Law – Part-Time Contractual Teachers – Entitlement to Salary – High Court directed salary equivalent to regular teachers’ basic pay for period 28.07.2010 to 24.12.2013 – Further direction to consider representation for additional periods based on duties performed – Supreme Court emphasized that contractual nature of appointment alone should not be grounds for denial of benefits – Secretary directed to consider claims afresh after giving opportunity of hearing [Paras 5–7, 13–14].

Decision: Contempt petitions disposed of – Liberty granted to petitioners to file fresh representations – Authority to summon records and decide within 4 months – Petitioners allowed to avail legal remedies if adverse order is passed [Paras 12–16].

Criminal Law – Corruption – Disciplinary Proceedings and Criminal Prosecution – Independence of Proceedings – Allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe by Executive Engineer – Successful trap laid by ACB – Departmental enquiry ended in exoneration – High Court quashed criminal proceedings relying on Radheshyam Kejriwal – Held, disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution are independent and parallel – Exoneration in disciplinary enquiry does not ipso facto bar criminal prosecution [Paras 2, 9, 13].

Service Law – Standard of Proof – Distinction Between Departmental Enquiry and Criminal Trial – Departmental enquiry governed by preponderance of probabilities – Criminal trial requires proof beyond reasonable doubt – Failure to prove charge in departmental proceedings does not automatically negate criminal culpability – Evidence in each proceeding must be assessed independently [Paras 2, 9–10].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Limits of High Court’s Power – Criminal proceedings quashed solely on basis of disciplinary exoneration held unsustainable – Criminal prosecution cannot be terminated by presuming insufficiency of evidence before trial – Anticipated failure of prosecution cannot be a ground for quashing [Paras 16–19].

Precedent – Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B. – Scope Explained – Principle that criminal prosecution cannot continue after exoneration on merits applies only where adjudication and prosecution arise under same statute by same authority and substratum of allegation is found non-existent – Not applicable to disciplinary enquiry and corruption prosecution conducted by different authorities [Paras 6–8, 13–14].

Precedent – State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi – Applicability Affirmed – Held, Ajay Kumar Tyagi correctly lays down law that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically warrant quashing of criminal case – No conflict with Radheshyam Kejriwal – High Court erred in treating Ajay Kumar Tyagi as per incuriam [Paras 10–13].

Departmental Enquiry – Nature and Evidentiary Value – Enquiry Officer’s report is not conclusive – Disciplinary Authority alone decides guilt or exoneration – Appointment of retired judicial officer as Enquiry Officer does not elevate evidentiary value of report – Enquiry report cannot bind criminal court [Paras 14–15].

Corruption Trap Case – Appreciation of Enquiry Findings – Enquiry exoneration based on non-examination of trap officer and witnesses standing outside office – Held, not an exoneration on merits – Evidence of complainant and independent witnesses sufficient even on preponderance of probabilities – Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority applied incorrect standard of proof [Paras 16–18].

Role of Investigating Agency and Criminal Court – Criminal court has coercive powers to secure presence of witnesses – Failure of witness to appear in departmental enquiry cannot be equated with failure in criminal trial – No presumption of prosecutorial laxity permissible [Paras 16–18].

Effect of Departmental Exoneration on Service – While disciplinary proceedings cannot be reopened due to criminal court findings – Conviction in criminal case would entail service consequences as per applicable rules, expressly reserved by disciplinary authority [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court quashing criminal proceedings set aside – Criminal prosecution directed to continue in accordance with law.

Service Law – Post-Retirement Departmental Proceedings – Jurisdiction – Corporation initiated departmental enquiry and passed recovery order of ₹18,09,809/- against appellant nearly a year after his superannuation – No provision under 1992 Service Regulations permitting such enquiry post-retirement – High Court upheld action relying on Rule 110 of 1992 Regulations and Rule 27 of 1982 Pension Rules – Supreme Court held that Rule 110 is residuary and does not ipso facto adopt State Pension Rules – No conscious decision of Board shown adopting 1982 Rules for departmental action post-retirement – Held: Corporation lacked jurisdiction to initiate or continue disciplinary enquiry against retired employee [Paras 15–24, 26–30].

Pension Law – Withholding of Retiral Benefits – Rule 27(2)(b)(i), 1982 Pension Rules – Sanction Mandatory – No sanction of State Government obtained before initiating departmental proceedings post-retirement – Plea of general sanction due to prior approval of service regulations rejected – Held: Prior sanction for each case is mandatory and safeguard cannot be bypassed on basis of general approval – Recovery and withholding of retiral dues without compliance of Rule 27(2)(b)(i) held illegal [Paras 24, 26–27].

Retirement Benefits – Entitlement – Appellant’s gratuity, PF, and leave encashment withheld – Supreme Court quashed entire disciplinary proceedings and directed refund of recovery already made – Corporation directed to release full retiral dues within 8 weeks [Paras 31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment and departmental proceedings quashed – Retiral benefits to be released within 8 weeks – Any recovery already effected to be refunded [Para 31].

Family Law – Transfer of Proceedings – Allegation of Bias – Transfer Not Justified – Appellant-wife challenged High Court’s ex parte order transferring proceedings in C.C. No. 136/2023 from Sangareddy to Hyderabad – Transfer sought by husband on grounds that wife’s relatives were employed as Head Constable and Junior Assistant in local police station and District Court respectively – Supreme Court held that such employment by itself did not establish bias or influence on judicial process – Observed that judicial independence cannot be presumed to be compromised by mere proximity of litigant’s relatives in administrative roles – High Court erred in granting transfer without hearing the wife – Held: Order of transfer unsustainable and directed restoration of case to Sangareddy Court [Paras 2-10].

Family Law – Divorce Decree – Suppression and Deceit – Allegation of Husband – Divorce obtained ex parte by husband in 2013 without informing wife despite settlement and compromise application under Section 482 CrPC filed days later – Wife became aware only in 2022 – Delay of 2709 days in filing appeal against divorce decree condoned by High Court – Supreme Court noted husband’s conduct could not be ignored while considering transfer – Held: Circumstances did not justify transfer sought by husband [Paras 4-7].

Security Concerns – Accused’s Apprehension of Threat – Remedy – Supreme Court held that husband-accused can seek permission to appear through counsel or via video conferencing – If personal appearance needed, application for protection to be considered by Magistrate – Transfer not warranted solely based on perceived threats without objective basis [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Case to be restored to Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangareddy – If closed due to complainant’s non-appearance, to be restored by Magistrate and taken up afresh – Directions to appear on 16.02.2026, including via counsel [Paras 10, 12-13].