Criminal Appeal – Quashing of FIR – Protest Rally and Dharna – FIR Quashed – Appellants challenged the criminal proceedings initiated for participating in a peaceful student rally in 2019 without prior permission, during the election Model Code of Conduct – The FIR alleged public nuisance and obstruction under IPC and Police Act – The Court found no ingredients of the alleged offences were made out and quashed the FIR, chargesheet, and trial proceedings – Held: The appellants were exercising their fundamental right to protest and no case was made for continuing prosecution [Paras 1-6, 13-21].

Bhajan Lal Principles – Application to Section 482 CrPC – No Offence Made Out – FIR Quashed – The Court applied the Bhajan Lal guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – Held: Even if allegations are accepted as true, they do not disclose any offence – Quashing justified under sub-clauses (1), (2), and (3) of Para 102 of Bhajan Lal case [Paras 13, 20].

Fundamental Rights – Peaceful Protest – Public Assembly without Arms – No Criminal Liability – Prosecution Misconceived – The protest was peaceful and without arms – No material suggested undue influence at elections, obstruction of traffic, or public nuisance as defined under IPC or Police Act – Held: Participation in peaceful protests is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and (b); no offence made out [Paras 10, 14, 18].

Failure to Make Out Ingredients of Offence – Sections 290, 341, 171F IPC – Allegations Inadequate – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Court observed that FIR and chargesheet lacked essential ingredients for the alleged offences – No act of wrongful restraint, undue electoral influence, or nuisance was demonstrated – FIR and C.C. No.1015/2021 quashed [Paras 16-19].

High Court's Error – Refusal to Quash – Misapplication of Law – Set Aside – The High Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 CrPC despite lack of prima facie offence – Supreme Court found this erroneous and an abuse of process – Held: High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction to secure ends of justice [Para 19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – FIR, Chargesheet and Proceedings Quashed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and quashed FIR No.102/2019, Chargesheet dated 03.06.2020 and proceedings in C.C. No.1015/2021 pending before the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati – Held: Continuation of prosecution was neither expedient nor in the interest of justice [Para 21].

Criminal Appeal – Quashing of FIR – Alleged cheating and breach of trust arising out of property transaction – FIR Quashed – The appellants challenged the registration of FIR and cognizance taken under Sections 406, 420, and 120B IPC in relation to a 2015 Agreement to Sell and GPA regarding land in Bhoopasandra Village, Bengaluru – The Court found that the dispute was purely civil in nature with no elements of entrustment or dishonest inducement at inception – Further, it held that possession was never transferred, and the complainant's own pleadings defeated the ingredients of the offences alleged – The Court quashed the FIR, chargesheet, and all proceedings, while also extending the benefit to a non-appealing co-accused – Serious observations were made against the BDA and collusive conduct in de-notification of acquired land – Civil suit allowed to proceed – No third-party rights to be created until related SLP is decided [Paras 1, 4, 19-20, 33-35, 39-41, 47-60].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Sections 406 and 420 IPC – No Entrustment or Dishonest Inducement – FIR Quashed – The Court held that the subject property belonged to the appellants and no entrustment or dishonest inducement at inception was evident from the FIR or case records – Thus, ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC were not satisfied – FIR and cognizance quashed [Paras 39-41].

Civil vs Criminal Proceedings – Overlapping Remedies – Civil Suit Pending – Criminal Case Abuse of Process – FIR Quashed – The Court held that although civil and criminal proceedings may co-exist, absence of criminal intent in this case, coupled with pending civil suit, rendered continuation of criminal case an abuse of process – FIR and chargesheet quashed [Paras 42-43].

Procedural Compliance – Priyanka Srivastava Guidelines – Filing of Affidavit – Defect Curable if Complied Pre-referral – Held: Although filing of affidavit is mandatory before referral under Section 156(3) CrPC, the complainant filed the affidavit before the Magistrate’s referral – Defect treated as curable and not fatal – Magistrate’s referral upheld [Paras 44-45].

Conspiracy Allegations – Section 120B IPC – No Illegal Agreement or Criminal Design – FIR Quashed – The Court held that no material existed to show that appellants had entered into any illegal agreement or shared criminal intent to deceive the complainant – Section 120B IPC not attracted [Para 38].

Suo Motu Relief – Non-Appellant Co-Accused – Parity Applied – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Though co-accused Vidyasree V.S. did not file appeal, Court extended benefit of quashing as all accused stood on same footing – Suo motu relief granted to serve justice [Para 48].

Statutory Malfeasance – BDA De-Notification – Collusive Conduct Observed – Matter Deferred – Serious irregularities in land acquisition, de-notification, and withdrawal of appeals by BDA noted by Court – Although inclined to exercise powers under Article 142, Court deferred to related pending SLP filed by BDA – Registry directed to tag this judgment to pending SLP – Status quo to be maintained [Paras 50-60].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – FIR, Chargesheet and Cognizance Order Quashed - The Court quashed the FIR, chargesheet dated 28.08.2024 and the order taking cognizance dated 30.08.2024 – Civil suit may continue – No third-party rights to be created until further orders in related SLP [Paras 47, 60].

Criminal Law – Quashing – Section 419, 420, 467,468,471 of the IPC - Criminal Complaint – Allegation of Forged Will – Quashing Justified – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Appellants, daughters-in-law of the deceased, inherited estate via a will dated 23.12.1993 – Sale deed was executed by one son after the testator’s death – Complainant filed complaint under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC seven years after mutation and amid pending civil suit – Held: Allegations failed to disclose any offence – Proceedings amounted to harassment and were filed with mala fide intent – Complaint quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 3.1–3.11, 6.1, 8.1, 8.3–8.9, 9–10].

Family Law - Transfer Petition – Custody Proceedings – Welfare of Minor – Transfer Allowed – Petitioner-wife sought transfer of proceedings filed by husband under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act for custody of six-month-old child from Jalpaiguri to Dehradun – Court held that compelling the mother to travel with a breast-feeding child would result in grave hardship – Transfer granted in the interest of justice and welfare of the child [Paras 1, 7, 8].

Domestic Violence Allegations – Pending Criminal Proceedings – Relevant Factor – The petitioner had filed complaints against the respondent for harassment and dowry-related abuse – FIR registered under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act – Court took note of pendency of criminal case as relevant background while assessing motive and hardship in custody litigation [Paras 2, 3, 6].

Maintenance – Interim Maintenance Ordered – Conditional Right to Defend – Court directed Family Court, Dehradun to determine interim maintenance for the petitioner and child within one month – Respondent-husband permitted to contest custody petition only upon payment of arrears and monthly compliance – Non-payment to result in dismissal for non-prosecution [Paras 9, 10, 11].

Judicial Discretion – Power Under Article 142 – Transfer Jurisdiction – Court exercised its plenary powers to balance competing interests and ensure procedural justice – Directions issued to secure child’s welfare and prevent vexatious litigation – Petition allowed [Para 7–11].

Final Order – Transfer Petition Allowed – Proceedings titled “Magnanil Goswami v. Kajal Sharma” pending before District Judge, Jalpaiguri transferred to Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun – All interlocutory applications also disposed of [Paras 8, 12].

Criminal Law - Murder of Wife – Sole Testimony of Child Witness – Section 302 IPC – Conviction Upheld – The accused was convicted by the trial court for murdering his wife by inflicting head injuries—Case rested substantially on the testimony of his 9-year-old daughter (PW-3), an eyewitness who was sleeping beside the deceased—She saw her father covering the deceased with a bedsheet and forbidding her to see the body; the accused then absconded—Child witness’s testimony found natural, consistent, and corroborated by landlord (PW-1) and medical evidence—Bloodstains on accused’s shirt matched deceased’s blood group—Defence of false implication rejected—Held: Burden under Section 106 Evidence Act not discharged; conviction and life sentence affirmed—Appeal dismissed, bail cancelled, and accused directed to surrender [Paras 5-16].

Arbitration Law  – Statutory Forum vs Contractual Clause – Exclusive Jurisdiction of Statutory Tribunal Upheld – The appellant, a private tollway company, initiated arbitration under Clause 44.3.1 of a Concession Agreement invoking the 1996 Act and ICADR Rules, after withdrawing a reference before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal without liberty – The High Court quashed the arbitral proceedings, holding the dispute fell exclusively within the statutory regime of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 – Supreme Court upheld this view, holding that the contract was a ‘works contract’, the claims were ascertained, and the 1983 Act provided an overriding statutory mechanism barring recourse to arbitration under the 1996 Act – The Court allowed the appellant to seek revival of the earlier withdrawn petition before the Tribunal [Paras 1–3, 11–18].

Maintainability of Writ – Challenge by State Entity Against Private Party – Writ Held Maintainable – The Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of the writ petition filed by MPRDC under Article 226 challenging arbitration proceedings initiated by a private company – Held: Since the dispute involved the public function of road development and the legality of invoking arbitration despite a statutory dispute resolution mechanism, the writ involved a public law element and was maintainable [Paras 8-8.4].

Works Contract – Applicability of Statutory Arbitration Tribunal – Arbitration Clause in Concession Agreement Held Inoperative – The appellant sought arbitration under the 1996 Act as per Clause 44.3.1 of the Concession Agreement – Held: The Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the 1983 Act has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising out of works contracts involving the State – Private arbitration proceedings are non est in law [Paras 9–11.10].

Quantified Claims – Tribunal Jurisdiction Valid – Claims Held Ascertained – The appellant argued its claims were not “ascertained” and hence outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction – Held: The claims totaling Rs. 280.1566 crores were clearly quantified and therefore fall within the ambit of “dispute” under Section 2(1)(d) of the 1983 Act, even post-amendment [Paras 11.2–11.3].

Doctrine of Election – Parallel Proceedings Not Permissible – Appellant Estopped – The appellant initially approached the statutory Tribunal, later withdrew without liberty, and initiated private arbitration – Held: This conduct violates the doctrine of election and amounts to forum shopping; Clause 44.3.1 cannot override the 1983 Act [Paras 12–13.1].

Limitation and Estoppel – Withdrawal Without Liberty Bars Re-agitation – The appellant withdrew its petition without permission under Rule 53(2), attracting the bar under Rule 53(3)(b) – Held: The appellant is precluded from raising the same claims before any forum including ICADR – However, Court permitted recall of the withdrawal order for justice [Paras 17–17.1].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Arbitration Under 1996 Act Quashed – Madhya Pradesh Tribunal Retains Exclusive Jurisdiction – The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order quashing arbitration initiated under the 1996 Act – Directed the appellant to apply for revival of Reference Petition No. 61 of 2018 before the Tribunal, to be considered and decided within four months [Paras 16–18].

Criminal Law - Murder  – Appeal Against Acquittal – Sections 302 & 449 IPC – Dying Declaration Found Unreliable – The State challenged the High Court’s reversal of the trial court’s conviction for murder and house trespass – The trial court had disbelieved the prosecution’s key eyewitness and convicted on the basis of dying declaration – High Court found serious doubts about the victim’s ability to give a coherent statement due to 100% burns, absence of measurable pulse or blood pressure, and feeble, unclear speech – Presence of relatives influencing the statement, discrepancies in timing, and suppression of earlier report further weakened prosecution – Held: Supreme Court upheld acquittal as findings were not perverse, contradictions were material, and alternative views were possible; no ground to interfere in acquittal [Paras 9-22].

Service Law – Retirement Age – Applicability of State Notification – Appellant denied benefit of enhanced retirement age from 60 to 65 years under West Bengal Government’s Notification dated 24.02.2021 on ground that 10-year teaching experience was not in a State-aided institution within West Bengal – University and State contended that ‘any State-aided University or College’ in Notification must be interpreted per amended definitions under West Bengal Universities (Control of Expenditure) Act, 1976 – Supreme Court held such interpretation arbitrary and discriminatory – Held: No justification to restrict past teaching experience to within West Bengal when candidate had served 14 years post-selection based on Assam experience – Artificial classification violative of Article 14 [Paras 2-3, 5-6, 8, 14, 19-21, 24]

Statutory Interpretation – Contextual Meaning – Word ‘any’ in Notification – Division Bench of Calcutta High Court held ‘any’ must be confined to universities under West Bengal Act per statutory definitions – Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing contextual interpretation – Held: Notification intended only to distinguish State-aided from private institutions, not to exclude teaching experience outside the State – Use of ‘any’ inclusive in nature – Context, object, and purpose must guide interpretation of subordinate legislation [Paras 16-18, 26-27]

Equality and Non-discrimination – Parochial Executive Action – Exclusion of candidates with teaching experience outside West Bengal held discriminatory and contrary to constitutional principles – Court emphasized that fraternity and unity are undermined by such parochial policies – Cited precedents on artificial classifications lacking rational nexus [Paras 3.1, 19-24]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Calcutta High Court Division Bench judgment dated 13.12.2023 set aside – Notification dated 28.06.2023 rejecting retirement age extension quashed – Appellant entitled to benefit of 24.02.2021 Notification – Costs of Rs. 50,000 awarded [Paras 28-29]

University Governance – Temporary Appointment of Vice-Chancellor – Section 13(7) of Technological University Act – Interpretation Affirmed – The Chancellor appointed temporary Vice-Chancellors “until further orders” – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s interpretation that such appointments cannot exceed six months and must conform to the statutory scheme – Held: Notification inconsistent with time limit under Section 13(7), but fresh appointment within six-month period permissible [Paras 3-6, 11].

Administrative Continuity – Avoiding Stalemate – Judicial Restraint and Pragmatic Relief – Despite setting aside the appointment notification, Court appreciated High Court’s concern for uninterrupted university administration – Directed stakeholders to work harmoniously and initiate appointment of regular Vice-Chancellors – Held: Education and student welfare must prevail over procedural disputes [Paras 12-14, 18].

Constitutional Powers – Fresh Notification Permissible – Chancellor Empowered to Reappoint Interim VC – Court clarified that while earlier notifications were invalid, it remains open to Chancellor to issue fresh notifications within statutory bounds – Held: Interim arrangements can continue for up to six months pending final appointment [Paras 15-20].

Judicial Directions – Cooperative Federalism – Harmonious Resolution Encouraged – Court urged the Chancellor and State Government to coordinate for expeditious constitution of Search Committee and regular appointments – Emphasized importance of cooperative resolution in educational governance [Paras 17-19].

Final Direction – Matter Kept Pending – Compliance Monitoring – Court kept the matter pending and directed reporting of further developments – Scheduled follow-up hearing on 13-08-2025 [Paras 22-23].