Criminal Law - Suspension of Sentence – Requirement of Reasoned Order – Suspension Set Aside – High Court suspended sentence of respondents convicted under Sections 302/149 IPC without assigning reasons – Held: As per Section 389(1) CrPC and Supreme Court precedent, appellate courts must record reasons while suspending sentence in serious offences – Orders passed without adherence to this requirement are legally untenable [Paras 6, 8–9].

Presumption of Innocence Post-Conviction – Not Available – Convicted Accused Not Entitled to Bail as Routine – Supreme Court emphasized that once conviction is recorded, initial presumption of innocence no longer applies – Held: Bail or suspension of sentence should not be granted routinely or without exceptional reasons in cases involving murder [Paras 6, 7, 8].

Appellate Court Duty – Avoid Reappreciation of Evidence at Bail Stage – High Court Erred – Held: At the stage of deciding suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC, appellate courts must not re-evaluate trial evidence or rely on speculative lacunae – Suspension must be justified by exceptional grounds or glaring prima facie errors [Para 8].

Precedents Relied – Omprakash Sahni Case – Applicable Legal Standards Reiterated – The Court relied on Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, (2023) 6 SCC 123, reiterating that suspension of sentence post-conviction under Section 302 IPC should be granted only in rare and exceptional circumstances with clear justification [Paras 7–8].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court Orders Set Aside – Respondents Directed to Surrender – Supreme Court set aside orders of suspension of sentence and directed convicted respondents to surrender within two weeks – High Court requested to hear both criminal appeals and cross-appeals expeditiously [Paras 10–12].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Breach of Contract vs. Cheating – Civil Dispute Camouflaged as Criminal – FIR and Chargesheet Quashed - Dispute arising from an oral agreement for sale of property held to be purely civil in nature – Allegations did not disclose fraudulent intent at inception or essential ingredients of Sections 420 or 406 IPC – Supreme Court quashed FIR and chargesheet to prevent misuse of criminal process.

Repetitive Criminal Complaints – Abuse of Process – Prior Judicial Findings Ignored – Summoning Set Aside - Respondent had earlier failed twice before the Magistrate who ruled the matter was civil – Yet, FIR registered and chargesheet filed on same allegations – Supreme Court found this amounted to harassment and judicial disregard – Summoning order and criminal proceedings quashed.

Mens Rea for Cheating – Not Established – Dishonest Intent Absent at Contract Stage - Citing precedents including V.Y. Jose and Mohammed Ibrahim, Court held that criminal offence of cheating requires fraudulent intent at the inception – Mere breach of promise or payment failure is insufficient for prosecution under Section 420 IPC .

Criminal Intimidation and Breach of Trust – Ingredients Not Satisfied – Charges Unsupported - Court elaborated that entrustment and fiduciary relationship are prerequisites for Section 406 IPC – Similarly, threat causing alarm must be established for Section 506 – Held: Allegations vague and do not constitute offences – Charges without evidentiary support are unsustainable .

Magistrate’s Duty – Cognizance Requires Judicial Application of Mind – Summoning Not Automatic - Emphasized duty of Magistrates to carefully assess material in FIR and chargesheet – Summoning must be based on prima facie offence made out – Vague or copy-pasted FIR content without investigation analysis is not sufficient.

Costs on State – Repeated Misuse of Criminal Law – Exemplary Costs Imposed - Supreme Court imposed ₹50,000 cost on the State of Uttar Pradesh for failure to curb misuse of criminal justice system despite repeated warnings – Directed Chief Secretary to ensure payment and consider internal accountability.

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Criminal Proceedings Quashed - FIR No. 78/2023, chargesheet dated 12.09.2023, and all proceedings thereon quashed – Liberty preserved for respondent to pursue civil remedies if available.
 

Criminal Law - Bribery – Demand and Acceptance – Conviction Restored - Accused, a Village Accountant, was caught in a trap accepting ₹500 as part of a ₹1500 bribe to process a mutation entry – Trial Court convicted, but High Court reversed on grounds of inconsistencies – Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies do not negate credible prosecution evidence – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) PC Act restored [Paras 12–14, 23–25].

Presumption Under Section 20 PC Act – Properly Invoked – Recovery Corroborated - Bribe amount recovered from accused’s pocket, with phenolphthalein test confirming contact – Section 20 presumption rightly applied – Defence plea of money being “forcibly put” rejected based on credible testimony of complainant (PW1) and shadow witness (PW2) [Paras 8–10, 13, 16].

Witness Credibility – Minor Inconsistencies Not Fatal – High Court Erred - Supreme Court held that minor contradictions due to 10-year delay in trial cannot override consistent narrative of PW1 and PW2 regarding demand and acceptance of bribe – High Court gave undue weight to irrelevant discrepancies and ignored reliable ocular and documentary evidence [Paras 14–18, 21–22].

Sanction for Prosecution – Properly Granted – Not Disputed - Though not argued before High Court, Trial Court had correctly appreciated sanction evidence – Conviction not vitiated on this ground [Para 20].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Acquittal Set Aside – Accused to Surrender - Trial Court’s conviction and sentence of 1 year RI and fine of ₹500 each under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) restored – Accused directed to surrender within two weeks [Paras 25–26].

Civil Law - Cluster Redevelopment – MHADA Authority on Freehold Land – Upheld – No Vested Right with Private Developer - MHADA's redevelopment initiative on freehold land, supported by majority of housing societies, held valid under Regulation 33(9) DCPR – Private developer’s unregistered agreements with some residents do not confer enforceable rights – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12–15, 20–21].

Maintainability – Article 226 Petition by Private Developer – Not Maintainable – Civil Remedy Available - Appellant's plea for writ relief rejected as disputes with residents were contractual in nature – Supreme Court held civil court is the proper forum for enforcement of such rights, if any – Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to block MHADA’s public development scheme [Paras 6, 17, 19].

Delay and Inaction – Failure to Commence Project – Public Interest Favoured - Developer had not started any construction since 2012 despite agreements – Only partial corpus funds paid to few residents – Court accepted that delay led residents and societies to support MHADA-led redevelopment in public interest [Paras 14, 16, 18].

Regulation 33(9) – Joint Development with Societies Permitted – Government Misdescription of Title Irrelevant - Court held that MHADA may partner with cooperative housing societies on freehold land – Erroneous description of land as “government land” in official resolution immaterial – Authority under DCPR sufficient [Paras 12–15].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Appellants Lacked Locus Standi - Supreme Court upheld High Court’s rejection of the writ petition – Held: Appellants had no legal basis or standing to challenge MHADA’s e-tender when majority societies supported it and no valid registered contracts existed [Paras 19–21].

Motor Accident Claim – Contributory Negligence – Sole Fault of Truck Driver – High Court Judgment Affirmed - Tribunal had found 50% contributory negligence by deceased biker – High Court, based on eyewitness and evidence, found sole negligence on part of truck driver – Supreme Court upheld this view as reasonable and consistent with record [Paras 1, 4–6].

Credibility of Evidence – Eyewitness vs. Interested Witness – Eyewitness Found Reliable - Eyewitness PW3, who followed the deceased on a separate bike, provided consistent, credible account of truck approaching wrong side – Contradictions in testimony of truck driver (RW1) and Investigating Officer (RW3) noted and rejected by Court [Paras 3–5].

Vicarious Liability – Employer Held Liable – Insurer Directed to Indemnify - Since negligence of truck driver was established, insurer was held liable to indemnify the owner/employer – Reaffirmation of principle of vicarious liability in motor accident cases [Para 6].

Assessment of Damages – Enhancement Not Challenged – No Interference Made - Petitioner did not contest the quantum of compensation – Supreme Court held enhancement by High Court proper and declined to interfere [Para 6].

Final Decision – SLP Dismissed – Compensation to Be Paid with Interest - Special Leave Petition dismissed – Insurer directed to disburse balance amount with interest to claimants within one month via RTGS [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Law – Murder - Criminal Conspiracy – Political Motive and Presence Established – Conviction Upheld - Petitioner (A6), a politically influential municipal councillor, was proven to have instigated a fatal mob attack following public altercations – Held: Motive established through multiple witnesses; presence at scene and exhortation to kill corroborated – Conspiracy proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 5–9, 13–15, 18].

Evidence – Omission in Initial Statements – Bias in Investigation – Later Statements Validated - Though A6 was not initially named, evidence revealed that investigating officers deliberately excluded his name – Statements under Section 164 CrPC recorded at victims’ request confirmed his role – High Court rightly relied on judicially recorded depositions over biased police record [Paras 14–15].

Parity with Acquitted Co-Accused – Differentiation Justified – Distinct Role Proved - A6’s role not identical to that of A5 who was acquitted – A6 exhorted the assailants and had clear prior involvement; A5’s presence explained by residence proximity – Held: Conviction of A6 does not violate principle of parity [Para 12–14].

Conspiracy – Circumstantial and Corroborative Evidence Sufficient – Test of Common Intention Met - Court reaffirmed that conspiracy can be inferred from conduct and presence – A6’s instigation and motive from earlier incidents linked to fatal attack – Held: Knowledge that act could result in death imputable under Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 16–19].

Decision – Special Leave Petition Dismissed – No Interference with Conviction - Supreme Court upheld High Court’s findings on conviction and sentence under Sections 304 Part II, 450, and allied offences – SLP dismissed with all pending applications disposed of [Paras 19–20].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Banking Dispute – Commercial Nature – One Time Settlement with Bank – Proceedings Quashed - Dispute between the appellants and Bank of Maharashtra was settled through a negotiated compromise, resulting in a "No Dues Certificate" and repayment exceeding principal loan amount – Held: Nature of dispute was civil/commercial, not criminal – Quashing of criminal proceedings warranted in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 1–7, 16–21].

Initiation by CBI – Absence of Complaint by Aggrieved Party – Valid Ground for Quashing - FIR was registered suo motu by CBI, not by the Bank – The Bank raised no grievance, supported the settlement, and had received full payment – Held: Absence of complaint by the actual aggrieved party supports case for quashing proceedings [Paras 8–11, 20].

Applicability of Precedents – Commercial Disputes with Settlements – Precedents Followed - The Court relied on established precedents including Gian Singh, Nikhil Merchant, Narinder Singh, and K. Bharthi Devi to hold that when the core dispute is civil and has been settled, continuing prosecution causes oppression and amounts to abuse of judicial process [Paras 12–19].

Possibility of Conviction – Remote and Bleak – Further Proceedings Unjust - Charges under IPC not substantiated by evidence – Bank officials not found culpable – PC Act charges dropped – Held: Continuation of proceedings would be unjust, given bleak possibility of conviction [Paras 21–23].

Final Decision – High Court and Sessions Court Orders Set Aside – Proceedings Quashed - Supreme Court set aside High Court’s refusal to quash FIR and reversed Sessions Court’s order reviving the case – FIR and all consequential proceedings against appellants quashed [Paras 24–25].

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction - Agreement to Sell – Maintainability - No Right Against Third Party – Suit Barred – Rejection of Plaint Upheld - The respondents filed a suit for injunction based on an agreement to sell with third parties, without impleading the actual vendors or establishing title – Held: An agreement to sell does not create any right in property as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act – Plaint fails to disclose cause of action and is barred in law – Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC justified [Paras 13–16].

Champertous and Vexatious Litigation – No Locus Without Title – Suit Held Abuse of Process - Respondents were not in possession and had no registered title – The plaint was a product of clever drafting to create an illusion of right – Held: Litigation was champertous, inequitable, and lacking bonafide – Court cautioned against speculative suits based on dubious agreements to sell [Paras 15.2.1–15.2.5, 18].

Section 53A TPA – Protection Limited to Vendor–Vendee – Not Enforceable Against Third Parties - Court held that doctrine of part performance under Section 53A only protects possession against transferor, not third parties claiming independent title – Respondents had no privity with appellant – Suit not maintainable [Paras 15.1–15.2.1].

Cash Transactions – Violation of Income Tax Law – Directions Issued - Suit claim included cash payment of ₹75 lakhs in violation of Section 269ST of Income Tax Act – Held: Courts must inform Income Tax Department when cash transactions of ₹2 lakhs or more are pleaded – Detailed compliance directions issued to High Courts, Sub-Registrars, and Tax Officers [Paras 18.1, 31–32].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Suit Rejected – Directions for Systemic Enforcement - Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside High Court and Trial Court orders, and rejected the plaint in O.S. No. 25968 of 2018 – Directions issued for audit and enforcement by judiciary and tax authorities – Costs not imposed but respondents warned against future abuse [Paras 19–21].

Employment Law - Reservation – Definition of Ex-Serviceman – IMNS Personnel Covered – Eligibility Recognized - The Court interpreted Rule 2(c) of the Punjab Rules, 1982 to include persons who served in the Indian Military Nursing Service (IMNS) – Held: IMNS is part of the Armed Forces of the Union as per the MNS Ordinance, 1943 – Respondent No. 4, having completed her short service commission and received gratuity, is entitled to be treated as an “ex-serviceman” under Clause (iv) of Rule 2(c) [Paras 10–18].

Interpretation of State Rules – Central Rules Inapplicable – Punjab Rules Govern Recruitment - The Court held that Central Rules, 1979 do not apply to state-level recruitment under Article 309 – Eligibility must be assessed under the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1982 framed by the State Government [Paras 6–9].

Constitutional Powers – Article 309 – State Entitled to Frame Rules – Valid Exercise of Power - Punjab Rules, 1982 being framed under Article 309 are binding and take precedence in state recruitments – Clarifications issued by the Kendriya Sainik Board cannot override statutory rules [Paras 9, 19].

Equitable Considerations – Existing Appointment Not to be Disturbed – Co-Existence Allowed - Appellant, a validly appointed ex-serviceman, shall continue in service – Respondent No. 4, if otherwise eligible and meritorious, shall also be appointed but without back wages – Appointments to co-exist without disturbing the appellant’s service [Paras 21–22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court Order Upheld - The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s ruling in favor of respondent No. 4’s eligibility and directed her appointment while protecting the appellant’s current employment status [Paras 23–24].