Civil Procedure – Decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC – Appellant failed to file written statement under impression that entire amount had been paid – Trial court decreed suit without examining issues or considering whether facts needed proof – Supreme Court held such decrees must reflect reasoning and ensure satisfaction that no fact needs proof despite deemed admission by Defendant [Paras 4-6].

Order VIII Rule 10 CPC – Discretionary Relief – Court emphasized discretion and caution in passing decrees when Defendant fails to file written statement – Judgment must contain reasoning and reflect understanding of facts and controversy resolved [Para 6].

Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Applicability – Not addressed directly; focus on trial court’s failure to adhere to established legal propositions for passing decrees under Order VIII Rule 10 [Para 9].

Decision – Judgment and decree dated 12.11.2003 set aside – Case remanded to trial court for fresh decision – Appellant permitted to file written statement within three weeks – Trial to be concluded expeditiously [Para 10].

Prevention of Corruption – Sanction for Prosecution – Respondent, a Deputy General Manager on deputation, was prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act without sanction from the State Government of Uttar Pradesh – High Court quashed prosecution for lack of valid sanction – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision, clarifying that removal from office means termination from service, not merely repatriation [Paras 1-12].

Sanctioning Authority – Determination – Court distinguished between power to repatriate and power to remove from service – Repatriation does not equate to removal from office under Section 19(1)(c) of the Act – Only the authority competent to remove from service can grant sanction [Paras 11-12].

Constitution Bench Precedent – Reference to R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay for interpreting "removal from office" – Affirmed that sanction must come from authority with power to terminate service, not just reassign duties [Para 8].

Request for Sanction – Pending Decision – State of Uttarakhand's request for sanction from Uttar Pradesh still pending – Supreme Court directed prompt decision on the request within eight weeks [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Sanction for prosecution must be obtained from appropriate authority [Para 15].

Judicial Officer – Compulsory Retirement – Appellant, a judicial officer, was compulsorily retired following allegations of demanding illegal gratification – Enquiry Officer found Appellant guilty based on statements recorded in preliminary inquiry – High Court dismissed Appellant's challenge – Supreme Court held reliance on preliminary inquiry statements without opportunity for cross-examination violated principles of natural justice [Paras 19-29].

Departmental Enquiry – Standard of Proof – Court reiterated that departmental proceedings, though quasi-judicial, do not require proof beyond reasonable doubt but must be based on preponderance of probabilities – Findings must be supported by evidence and meet natural justice requirements [Paras 6A-F].

Protection of Judicial Officers – Emphasized judiciary's duty to protect honest judicial officers from motivated complaints – Reiterated that judicial officers must be safeguarded to maintain judicial independence and integrity [Paras 6II(a-d)].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Clarified judicial review in disciplinary matters focuses on procedural fairness, adherence to principles of natural justice, and existence of evidence – Court does not re-evaluate evidence as an appellate authority [Paras 6III(i-iii)].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compulsory retirement order set aside – Appellant exonerated of all charges – State of Gujarat directed to pay Rs. 5 lakhs in costs to the Appellant within three months [Paras 30].

Dowry Death and Cruelty – Evidence – Appellants convicted under Sections 304B, 498A, and 306 IPC based primarily on a letter (Ext. 49) allegedly written by the deceased – Supreme Court found grave doubts regarding the authenticity of the letter – Defence evidence suggested the deceased was not at Ahmedabad when the letter was purportedly written – No other substantial evidence of cruelty or harassment by the Appellants [Paras 4-5].

Harassment and Demand for Dowry – Evaluation of Evidence – Letter (Ext. 31) written by PW3 (brother of deceased) indicated the deceased was living happily shortly before her death – Mention of Rs. 33,000/- or Rs. 43,000/- in Ext. 31 insufficient to prove demand for dowry and associated cruelty or harassment [Paras 5-6].

Standard of Proof – Prosecution's Burden – Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Appellants subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand – Conviction under Sections 304B, 498A, and 306 IPC not sustainable without such proof [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentences set aside – Appellants' bail bonds discharged [Para 8].

Matrimonial Disputes – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Appellants sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 498A and 406 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act following mutual settlement – Trial Court and High Court dismissed the petition citing non-compoundable nature of offences – Supreme Court held High Courts have inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in matrimonial disputes if parties settle amicably [Paras 6-14].

Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are wide and should be used to secure ends of justice, especially in matrimonial disputes where genuine settlement is reached – Non-compoundable nature of offences under Section 320 CrPC does not restrict High Court's power to quash proceedings [Paras 11-14].

Encouragement of Settlements – Supreme Court highlighted the importance of encouraging settlements in matrimonial disputes to ensure peace and stability in family life – Courts should exercise discretion to quash proceedings to secure ends of justice and avoid abuse of judicial process [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 4166 of 2011 quashed [Para 15].

Promotion Denial – Sealed Cover Procedure – Respondent's promotion to Group 'A' (Junior Scale) of IRAS was withheld due to pending departmental and criminal proceedings – Supreme Court held that none of the conditions for applying the sealed cover procedure were met as of the relevant date, 21.04.2003 – High Court's decision to direct promotion upheld [Paras 8-12].

Office Memorandum Compliance – The 1992 Office Memorandum specifies conditions for sealed cover procedure, including suspension, pending charge-sheet, or pending prosecution – Supreme Court confirmed none of these conditions were met on the relevant date – Paragraph 2 of the memorandum was decisive; paragraph 7 invoked by the appellant was not applicable [Paras 8, 12].

Precedents – Consistency with Previous Rulings – Court reiterated principles from Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman that disciplinary proceedings commence only when a charge-sheet is issued – Also referred to Coal India Ltd. v. Saroj Kumar Mishra and Chairman-Cum-M.D. Coal India Ltd. v. Ananta Saha, confirming departmental proceedings start with the issuance of a charge-sheet [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court's order directing the respondent's promotion affirmed – No costs awarded [Para 17].

Maintenance – Compromise in Section 125 CrPC Proceedings – Appellant and respondent entered into a compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC agreeing on a consolidated amount for permanent alimony – Respondent later filed for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Supreme Court held that a compromise in a Section 125 CrPC proceeding does not preclude filing for maintenance under Section 18 of the Act [Paras 9-12].

Nature of Section 125 CrPC – Section 125 CrPC provides a summary and speedy relief for maintenance – Order under Section 125 is tentative and does not determine final rights – Maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act provides separate relief unaffected by compromise under Section 125 CrPC [Paras 10-11].

Public Policy and Contract Act – Agreements opposed to public policy are void – Compromise in Section 125 CrPC cannot foreclose the remedy under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act as it would be against public policy [Para 11].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Suit under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act is maintainable despite earlier compromise under Section 125 CrPC [Para 12].

Rape Conviction – Reliability of Sole Testimony – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC based on sole testimony of the prosecutrix – Supreme Court found the testimony improbable and unnatural, unsupported by corroborating evidence – Non-examination of the doctor and investigating officer prejudiced the defense [Paras 8-12].

Delay in FIR – Impact on Credibility – FIR lodged after 11 days without adequate explanation – Delay and lack of immediate complaint cast doubt on the prosecution’s case – Supreme Court held the delay unjustified and critical to the case's credibility [Paras 9, 15].

Consensual Sex Argument – Appellant argued consensual sex based on prior acquaintance and circumstances – Supreme Court found merit in the argument, noting inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecutrix’s account – Referred to Raju v. State of Madhya Pradesh for principles on evaluating rape allegations [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant’s bail bonds discharged [Para 17].

Speedy Trial – Prolonged Delay – Appellants filed a writ petition under Article 32 claiming violation of the right to a speedy trial due to the protracted delay in concluding the trial – Supreme Court analyzed the delay, attributing significant periods to the appellants' own actions, including filing numerous applications and seeking adjournments [Paras 6-9, 19].

Balance of Considerations – Weighing Delay and Justice – Court emphasized the need to balance the right to a speedy trial with the impact of corruption on society – Corruption cases require careful handling to maintain public confidence in the judicial system – Delay in trial alone does not justify quashing proceedings if the crime's societal impact is significant [Paras 19-21].

Constitutional Right – Not an Absolute Time Limit – Reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is relative and context-dependent – Emphasized the need for courts to consider all circumstances, including the nature of the offence and societal interests, rather than adhering strictly to arbitrary time limits [Paras 12-15, 18].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Court directed the Special Judge to conclude the trial by the end of December 2013 – Emphasized the balance between ensuring speedy justice and addressing the serious nature of corruption charges [Paras 21-22].