Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Conviction - Appeal Against Acquittal: The Supreme Court reversed the acquittal of the accused under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, and Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, observing that the High Court had erroneously discarded substantial evidence of dowry harassment and the unnatural death of the deceased. The Court restored the Trial Court’s conviction with modification, reducing the sentence under Section 304B IPC to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. [Paras 1-25]

Evidence Act - Dying Declaration - Assessment: The Supreme Court evaluated the reliability of conflicting dying declarations, finding the oral declarations made by the deceased to her family members more credible than the written declaration allegedly recorded by the Executive Magistrate. The credibility of evidence is paramount in determining the truth of the circumstances leading to death. [Paras 16-17]

Criminal Procedure - Section 313 - Accused's False Plea: The Court held that the false plea by the accused that they were unaware of the burn injuries inflicted on the deceased was an additional incriminating factor. The burden of explaining the circumstances of the incident, particularly within the accused’s knowledge, was not satisfactorily discharged by the respondents. [Para 20]

Investigation - Lapses - Impact on Prosecution Case: It was noted that defects in the investigation could not solely justify the acquittal of the accused when there was overwhelming evidence supporting the prosecution's case. The role of the Court is to discern the truth from the evidence presented. [Para 13]

Minor Discrepancies - Impact on Credibility: The Supreme Court emphasized that minor discrepancies regarding the details of dowry demands did not undermine the overall reliability of the prosecution's evidence. Consistent testimonies regarding dowry harassment and the deceased's circumstances were sufficient to uphold the charges. [Para 18]

Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s order of acquittal. The Trial Court's conviction was restored with the modification that the sentence under Section 304B IPC was reduced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. [Paras 24-25]

Criminal Law - Powers of Special Judge - Summoning of Additional Accused - Criminal Appeal against High Court Order Quashing Issuance of Summons by Special Judge - Special Judge’s Power to Summon Additional Accused Post-Commitment and Pre-Trial Stage - Sections 193, 209, 319 of the CrPC - Supreme Court affirms that the Special Judge, akin to a Sessions Court, holds jurisdiction to summon individuals not named in the original chargesheet but whose complicity is revealed during the investigation. This power includes summoning those named in column 2 of the chargesheet prior to the evidence stage under Section 319. The High Court's reliance on a narrower interpretation was found to be erroneous. The order of the High Court was set aside, and the Special Judge’s order was restored. [Paras 19-20, 30-32]

Role of Special Judge in Preventing Miscarriage of Justice - Special Judge’s Authority - Legal Position - Analysis - Held - Constitution Bench’s View in Kishun Singh Followed - Misapplication by High Court Noted - Prevention of Deliberate Shielding of Offenders - The judgment reiterated the importance of the Special Judge’s role in ensuring all perpetrators are brought to trial. The High Court’s quashing of the order based on a restrictive reading of the law was reversed. The Special Judge’s actions to summon the additional accused were upheld to prevent the miscarriage of justice. [Paras 16-20, 28-30]

Decision - Restoration of Special Judge's Order Summoning Additional Accused - Directions to CBI - The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order, thereby restoring the Special Judge’s decision to summon additional accused. However, the direction for the CBI to register a case against its investigating officer was deemed unnecessary and was set aside. [Paras 31-32]

Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Complaint and Summoning Orders – Criminal Appeals against High Court order dismissing petitions to quash criminal complaints for conspiracy and forgery – Appellants public servants accused of fabricating documents to reject tender – Supreme Court examined if prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was necessary and if the complaint constituted abuse of process – Held, public servants acting in discharge of official duties; sanction under Section 197 mandatory – Complaints found to be motivated, after unsuccessful civil litigation by respondent – High Court’s dismissal of petitions to quash complaints reversed; cognizance taken by Magistrate set aside. [Paras 1-20]

Prior Sanction for Prosecution of Public Servants – Applicability of Section 197 CrPC – Analysis – Held, offences alleged must be connected to discharge of official duties for sanction requirement – Supreme Court found allegations pertain to discharge of official duties; hence, prior sanction mandatory – Complaints deemed as afterthought following failed civil remedies – High Court’s contrary view incorrect. [Para 11-16]

Abuse of Process of Law – Conversion of Civil Dispute into Criminal Prosecution – Analysis – Held, filing criminal complaints after civil remedies exhausted constitutes abuse of process – Respondent’s actions motivated by failure in civil suits – Allegations of forgery unfounded and intended to pressurize appellants – Criminal proceedings quashed to prevent misuse of judicial process. [Para 17-20]

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Complaint and Summoning Orders – Appeals allowed; High Court order set aside – Magistrate’s order taking cognizance and summoning appellants quashed – Complaints dismissed – No order as to costs. [Para 20]

Civil Procedure - Counter-Claim - Dismissal - Revisional Jurisdiction vs. Appeal - Civil Appeal against High Court order setting aside trial court's dismissal of counter-claim under Order 2, Rule 2 CPC - Supreme Court rules that dismissal of counter-claim is a decree and should be appealed - High Court's exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution held improper - Order passed by High Court set aside. [Paras 1-18] Counter-Claim - Nature and Legal Standing - Analysis - Counter-claim is treated as a cross-suit, requiring adjudication similar to a plaint - Supreme Court affirms that dismissal of a counter-claim results in a final adjudication, akin to a decree, thus requiring an appeal rather than revisional jurisdiction. [Para 12-16] Decree - Definition and Applicability - Analysis - Order dismissing a counter-claim holds the status of a decree due to its final adjudication on the rights of parties - Revisional jurisdiction inappropriate for such determinations, necessitating appeal. [Para 13-17]

Decision - High Court's order annulled, granting liberty to respondents to file an appeal before the appropriate forum - Supreme Court emphasizes adherence to procedural requirements for challenging decrees, ensuring proper legal channels are utilized. [Para 18]

Civil Procedure - Execution Proceedings - Jurisdiction of Executing Court - Adjudication of Objections - Civil Appeal against High Court order dismissing writ petition under Article 227 Constitution of India challenging executing court's order - Executing court dismissed application under Order XXI, Rules 97, 99, and 101 CPC as it had become functus officio - Held, executing court erred in not adjudicating the objections on merits and incorrectly declared itself functus officio - High Court also erred in treating executing court’s order as a decree appealable under Order XXI, Rule 103 CPC - Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration under Article 227 - Appeal allowed. [Paras 1-25]

Adjudication of Objections in Execution - Analysis - Held - Executing court is empowered under Order XXI, Rules 97 to 103 CPC to adjudicate all questions relating to right, title, or interest in the property arising between the parties - Such adjudication must be on merits, involving inquiry and evidence if necessary - Executing court’s mere declaration of being functus officio without substantive adjudication is improper and not a decree under Order XXI, Rule 103 CPC. [Para 21]

High Court's Superintendence Power - Article 227 Constitution of India - Held - High Court has jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct jurisdictional errors by subordinate courts - Order of executing court, without adjudicating objections on merits, necessitates intervention under Article 227 - High Court directed to adjudicate matter afresh. [Para 22-23]

Decision - Remand to High Court - Appeal allowed - High Court to decide matter under Article 227 within three months - No order as to costs. [Para 23]

Right to Redeem - Tenancies Created by Mortgagees - Validity Post-Redemption - Interpretation of Mortgage Deed-Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 60, 111 - Right of mortgagor to redeem property and reclaim possession free from encumbrances created by mortgagee. Held, mortgage deed's language must clearly indicate if tenancies created by mortgagee bind mortgagor post-redemption. Clause allowing mortgagor to receive rent post-possession does not create tenancy relationship with mortgagee's tenants. Continuing possession of mortgagee’s tenants post-redemption constitutes a clog on redemption - mortgagor entitled to repossess property free from such tenancies. Judgment of High Court setting aside mortgagor's suit for possession overturned. [Paras 4-8]

Clog on Equity of Redemption - Creation of Tenancies by Mortgagee-Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 76, 111 - Provisions preventing mortgagor from regaining property in original state considered clogs on equity of redemption. Tenancies created by mortgagees without clear and unambiguous recognition by mortgagors in mortgage deed not binding post-redemption. Mortgagor’s right to reclaim possession upheld; tenants of mortgagees cannot claim protection under Rent Acts unless tenancy clearly agreed upon in mortgage terms. [Paras 5-6]

Construction of Mortgage Deed - Mortgagor’s Entitlement to Possession-Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 60 - Express recognition of mortgagor’s right to possession post-redemption without explicit language binding tenants created by mortgagees. High Court’s interpretation leading to mortgagors needing eviction grounds under Rent Act flawed; redemption rights should remain unimpeded. Judgment facilitating mortgagor’s possession rights restored; case remanded for reconsideration of unresolved issues. [Para 8]

Civil Procedure - Specific Performance of Contract - Powers of First Appellate Court - Civil Appeal against the dismissal of a suit for specific performance by the trial court and the subsequent affirmation by the High Court - High Court failed to adequately address the factual and legal issues raised, nor did it properly appreciate the evidence or the applicable legal principles - Held that the High Court did not fulfill its duty as the first appellate court to re-evaluate the evidence and provide reasoned findings - Impugned judgment set aside and case remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits, with instructions to properly consider all issues and evidence. [Paras 9-25]

Appellate Court’s Duty - First Appeal - Analysis - The Court emphasized the role of the first appellate court in re-evaluating both factual and legal issues, highlighting the necessity for detailed reasoning in judgments to ensure justice - Referring to established precedents, the judgment underlined that the High Court must independently assess the trial court’s findings and provide its own reasoning. [Paras 11-19]

Decision - Remand for Fresh Consideration - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's cryptic judgment due to its failure to properly engage with the appellant’s submissions and the evidence - The case was remanded to the High Court for a fresh hearing and decision on merits, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation of all relevant issues. [Paras 25-28]

Criminal Law – Commutation of Sentence – Scope of Judicial Intervention – Criminal Appeal against the Rajasthan High Court order directing the State to grant benefit of commutation of sentence under Section 433 CrPC to the respondent – Respondent convicted under Sections 363, 366A, and 376 IPC – High Court's direction challenged by State – Held, court cannot direct the government to commute sentences; it can only direct consideration for commutation – High Court erred in its direction to commute sentence without discussing evidence or noting extraordinary circumstances – Appeal disposed of as infructuous due to respondent having already served sentence – Observations made regarding the inappropriate concession by the Public Prosecutor in High Court – [Paras 9-13]

Role of Public Prosecutor – Analysis – Held, Public Prosecutor conceded to commutation without examining legal position – Role of Public Prosecutor crucial in serious offences, requiring careful legal consideration – Casual approach by Public Prosecutor criticized – [Para 13]

Decision – Direction for Commutation of Sentence – Appeal disposed of as infructuous due to completion of sentence by respondent – High Court's error in directing commutation noted – Court emphasized proper legal procedures and restraint in judicial directions regarding executive powers – [Paras 12-13]

Property Law - Oral Gift under Muhammadan Law - Essentials - Appeal against High Court judgment reversing trial and first appellate court decisions favoring the validity of an oral gift made by Abdul Haq in favor of Rasheeda Khatoon. Examination of essential conditions under Muhammadan Law: declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession - Held that the alleged oral gift was not substantiated by the deed's contents or accompanying evidence, lacking essential delivery of possession - Deed was deemed as a contemporaneous document necessitating registration under the Registration Act - High Court's judgment upheld, dismissing Plaintiff's suit. [Paras 1-25]

Registration of Gift Deeds - Requirement under Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act - Analysis of Sections 123 and 129 of the Transfer of Property Act alongside Section 17 of the Registration Act - Held that a written gift deed does not inherently require registration unless it serves as the instrument effectuating the gift, not merely as evidence - Focus on factual determination of possession and control over the gifted property to establish validity. [Paras 16-25]

Decision - Validity of Oral Gift and Registration Requirement - Court concluded that the gift in question did not satisfy the necessary conditions of possession and control under Muhammadan Law, thereby failing as a valid gift - Deed required registration if considered as the instrument of gift - Appeal dismissed, affirming High Court's decision. [Para 25]