Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Unauthorized Subletting – Evidence and Legitimate Inference – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision reversing the trial and appellate courts' findings of unauthorized subletting. It was held that mere inaction by the tenant (Defendant No. 1) to evict the alleged sub-tenant (Defendant No. 2) does not constitute subletting. The courts below incorrectly drew inferences of subletting based on circumstantial evidence without substantial proof of a legal arrangement for monetary consideration between the tenant and alleged sub-tenant. [Paras 16-28]

Legitimate Inference – Burden of Proof – Held, subletting can be established by legitimate inference from facts proven, but in this case, the inferences drawn by the lower courts did not flow clearly from the facts. The High Court rightly interfered in its revisional jurisdiction, finding that the conclusions of subletting were legally fallible. [Paras 17-23, 28]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's order that the concurrent findings of the lower courts on unauthorized subletting were unsustainable. The High Court acted within its revisional jurisdiction to correct legally erroneous inferences drawn from the facts.

Criminal Law - Investigation Deficiencies - Suo Motu Action by Supreme Court – The Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings based on a news report regarding the gang-rape of a woman on orders of a village court. The investigation had several deficiencies including the improper recording of FIR by a male officer, lack of mobile details, and contradictions in witness statements. The Court highlighted the necessity of adherence to procedural amendments, particularly those safeguarding women's rights, and directed the state to rectify investigative shortcomings. [Paras 1-7]

Criminal Law - Prevention of Recurrence of Crime - Directive Measures – The Supreme Court underscored the need for systemic changes to prevent recurring crimes against women. It emphasized the importance of police vigilance, community sensitization, and strict action against unlawful assemblies such as khap panchayats. The judgment reiterated legal provisions protecting women and stressed that state machinery must ensure their implementation. [Paras 8-16]

Compensation for Victims - State's Obligation – The Supreme Court mandated the state to provide substantial compensation for the victim's rehabilitation. The judgment emphasized that compensation should be directly provided to the victim, ensuring it aids in her rehabilitation. The Court also directed measures for the long-term safety and security of the victim and her family, beyond interim relief. [Paras 17-25]

International Law - Compliance with Obligations – The Court noted that crimes against women violate not only domestic laws but also India's international obligations. The judgment called for harmonious functioning of state machinery to protect women's rights, highlighting the mandatory registration of FIRs for cognizable offences and the obligation of hospitals to provide free treatment to victims. [Paras 26-27]

Assistance of Amicus Curiae – The Court acknowledged the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General, who was appointed as amicus curiae to represent the cause of the victim. [Para 28]

Decision – The suo motu petition was disposed of with the above directions, aimed at ensuring justice for the victim and preventing future occurrences of such heinous crimes. [Para 29]

Land Acquisition Act - Determination of Market Value - Appeal against High Court's assessment - Market value of land in village Aali assessed @ Rs. 6,51,000/- per acre based on comparable judgments - Appellant claimed higher value @ Rs. 10,00,000/- per acre - Supreme Court affirms High Court's assessment due to lack of substantial evidence to support appellant's higher claim - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-23]

Market Value Assessment - Comparable Sales - Principles and Guidelines - Held - Market value determined considering geographical situation, existing use, and comparable sales in the vicinity - Factors such as location, potential value, and existing infrastructure taken into account - Court notes the need for relevant evidence to support claims of higher compensation. [Para 7-15]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal - Court finds no merit in appellant's claim for higher compensation - High Court's assessment based on relevant legal principles upheld - Appeal dismissed. [Para 22-23]

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice - Constitutional Validity of Juvenile Justice Act – The appeal and writ petition challenge the constitutionality of treating all offenders under 18 as juveniles, regardless of the crime's severity or the juvenile's mental maturity. The petitioners argue for "reading down" the Act to exclude mentally mature juveniles committing heinous crimes from its purview. Held: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, as it aligns with international conventions and does not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Act's differentiation based on age, treating all under 18 as a separate class, is constitutionally valid. The Court refused to read down the Act and dismissed the petitions. [Paras 1-49]

Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Classification - Reasonableness –

The classification of all persons under 18 as juveniles is constitutionally permissible under Article 14. The Act does not over-classify, as it creates a distinct category for juveniles based on a reasonable nexus to its rehabilitative and reformative objectives. The differential treatment aims to fulfill international obligations and legislative intent, ensuring the rehabilitation of juveniles rather than their punishment. [Paras 39-45]

International Law - Compliance with International Conventions –

India's obligations under international conventions like the Beijing Rules, CRC, and Havana Rules justify the legislative framework of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Act's provisions reflect these commitments, emphasizing the reform and rehabilitation of juveniles while adhering to international standards for juvenile justice. [Paras 23-28]

Statutory Interpretation - Reading Down Doctrine –

The Court refrains from reading down the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. When legislative intent is evident and constitutional, courts must not re-interpret statutes to achieve perceived legislative omissions. The doctrine of reading down applies only to save statutes from unconstitutionality, which is not applicable in this case. [Paras 42-43]

Decision: Appeals and writ petitions dismissed. The Court upholds the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as constitutionally valid and compliant with international obligations. The classification of all under 18 as juveniles, providing a distinct scheme for their trial and rehabilitation, does not violate the Constitution.

Criminal Law – Bail – Grant of bail in cases involving senior police officers accused of serious crimes – Criminal Appeal against High Court order denying bail – Accused charged with multiple serious offenses including murder and conspiracy – Appellant in custody for nearly seven years pending trial – Supreme Court emphasizes need for judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, highlighting prolonged pre-trial detention and parity with co-accused granted bail – Bail granted with conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensuring presence during trial. [Paras 1-25]

Consideration of Bail – Principles – Held – Court should exercise discretion judiciously and not as a matter of course – Factors considered include nature of accusation, severity of punishment, and reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence – Detailed examination of evidence not required at bail stage, but reasons for granting bail must be indicated. [Para 11-12]

Delay in Trial – Prolonged Detention – Held – Delay in trial proceedings, especially in cases involving voluminous evidence and multiple witnesses, can justify granting bail – Seven-year pre-trial detention deemed excessive and violative of Article 21 – Special Court directed to expedite trial proceedings. [Para 13-14]

Parity with Co-accused – Analysis – Held – Similar treatment warranted for appellant in light of bail granted to several co-accused under comparable circumstances – Parity principle applied to ensure fairness and consistency. [Para 15-20]

Conditions of Bail – Appellant directed to execute bond with two solvent sureties, surrender passport, and report regularly to the court – CBI granted liberty to seek modification/recalling of bail in case of any violation of conditions. [Para 24-25]

Decision – Bail Granted – Appellant ordered to be released on bail subject to specific conditions to ensure compliance and prevent tampering with evidence – Appeals disposed of with directions to expedite trial. [Para 25]

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Appeal for quashing FIR based on compromise – Legal principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings upon settlement – Held – The power under Section 482 CrPC distinct from the compounding of offences under Section 320 CrPC – High Court should exercise inherent power to quash proceedings to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process – Serious offences like those under Section 307 IPC generally considered heinous and against society, but the nature and circumstances of each case must be evaluated – Compromise in cases involving serious offences can be accepted based on injury severity, nature of the offence, and likelihood of conviction – In present case, the compromise was accepted, and the FIR was quashed – Appeal allowed. [Paras 1-36]

Compromise in Criminal Cases - Offences Under Section 307 IPC – Held – Court must assess whether Section 307 IPC was appropriately charged or added – If injuries are not severe or likely to result in conviction, and parties have settled, proceedings can be quashed – Timing of the settlement is crucial, with earlier settlements being more favorably considered – Compromise to foster peace and avoid futile proceedings – In this case, compromise accepted considering the minimal chance of conviction and community harmony. [Paras 26-31]

Decision - Quashing of FIR – Court quashes FIR No. 121/14.7.2010 under Sections 307, 324, 323, 34 IPC based on compromise – Noting the improbability of conviction and the importance of maintaining harmony, the continuation of proceedings deemed unnecessary. [Para 35-36]

Cantonment Land - Resumption of Property - Civil Appeal challenging High Court judgment granting permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with the possession and title of the plaintiff over Bungalow No. 18 within Shillong Military Cantonment - High Court held that the plaintiff was the absolute owner based on a Will and probate granted - Supreme Court reversed High Court's decision, emphasizing that the General Land Register (GLR) entries are conclusive evidence of the Government's title - GLR classified the property as B3 land under old grant, which allows resumption by the Government - Plaintiff failed to establish ownership beyond occupancy rights - High Court's judgment set aside - Plaintiff's suit dismissed. [Paras 1-17]

Evidentiary Value of GLR - Analysis - Held - GLR entries maintained under Cantonment Land Administration Rules are conclusive evidence of title - Plaintiff's claim based on probate and Will insufficient to counter GLR entries indicating old grant tenure with resumption rights reserved to the Government - High Court erred in shifting burden of proof to the defendants and not giving due weight to GLR entries. [Paras 10-15]

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Supreme Court allows the appeal, sets aside the High Court's judgment, and dismisses the plaintiff's suit for lack of title and ownership over the disputed property - Defendants' right of resumption upheld as per old grant terms recorded in GLR. [Para 17]

Criminal Law - Power to Grant Pardon - Jurisdiction of Magistrate-The appeal challenged the grant of pardon by the Metropolitan Magistrate to the second respondent, Ravi Bhatt, under Section 306 of Cr.P.C. The appellant contended that only the Special Judge, under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, had the jurisdiction to grant such pardon. The Supreme Court held that during the investigation phase, both the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Special Judge have concurrent jurisdiction to grant pardon under Section 306 of Cr.P.C. This concurrent jurisdiction facilitates proper investigation and does not contravene any statutory provisions. [Paras 10-14]

Curable Irregularities - Section 460 of Cr.P.C.-The Supreme Court further held that even if the Metropolitan Magistrate's order granting pardon was beyond his jurisdiction, it constituted a curable irregularity under Section 460(g) of Cr.P.C., provided it was made in good faith. This irregularity does not vitiate the proceedings. The Court found that the order of pardon was passed in good faith and directed by the Special Judge, thus maintaining its validity. [Paras 15-16]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal-The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the pardon granted by the Metropolitan Magistrate and upheld the concurrent jurisdiction of the Magistrate and the Special Judge during the investigation phase. The Court emphasized that the procedural irregularity, if any, was curable and did not affect the merit of the case. [Paras 16-17]

Criminal Law - Bail Application - Regular Bail - Jurisdiction of High Court - The appellant sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC from the High Court after being denied anticipatory bail. The High Court rejected the application on the grounds that the Magistrate must be approached first. Supreme Court held that the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Sessions Court under Section 439 CrPC to grant bail. The appellant can surrender before the High Court and seek bail. The High Court must consider the bail application on its merits. [Paras 2-27]

Custody - Definition and Interpretation - The concept of 'custody' under Section 439 CrPC includes physical presence before the court and submission to its jurisdiction. Surrender before the High Court equates to being in custody for bail purposes. The High Court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the bail application. [Para 8-12, 16-19]

Judicial Precedents - Per Incuriam - Application - The Single Judge of the High Court incorrectly deemed the precedent in Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote per incuriam. Supreme Court clarified that Niranjan Singh remains good law and binding, establishing that surrender before the court constitutes custody. [Paras 13-20]

Prosecution Conduct - Role of Public Prosecutor vs. Private Counsel - Public Prosecutor's primacy in conducting the prosecution emphasized. Private counsel for the complainant can only assist, not lead, the prosecution in Sessions trials, preserving the fairness and impartiality of the trial process. [Paras 24-25]

Decision - High Court Order Set Aside - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, directed the High Court to consider the appellant’s application for surrender and bail afresh, and extended protection from arrest for two weeks or until disposal of the application. [Paras 26-28]