Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Maintainability of Petition Post-Divorce - Interpretation of Domestic Relationship - Whether an application under the Domestic Violence Act is maintainable after an alleged divorce - The appellant, having obtained 'Khula' (divorce) as per Muslim Personal Law, filed an application under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent for various reliefs. The lower courts dismissed the application on the grounds that post-divorce, no domestic relationship existed. The Supreme Court, however, held that the existence of a domestic relationship at any point in time qualifies the aggrieved person to seek relief under the Act.Held that the application under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable regardless of the divorce status if domestic violence occurred during the subsistence of the domestic relationship. [Paras 1-34]

Interpretation of Domestic Relationship - Definition and Scope - Domestic relationship includes past relationships where the parties have lived together in a shared household. The reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act are accessible even after the dissolution of marriage if the acts of domestic violence were committed during the marriage.The Court interpreted the definition of 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(f) to include relationships that have existed in the past. [Para 20-26]

Monetary Relief and Compensation - Section 20, 22 of the Domestic Violence Act - The appellant's right to monetary relief and compensation under the Domestic Violence Act is not nullified by the divorce-The Court directed the respondent to comply with the interim maintenance order passed by the Magistrate. [Para 31-33]

Decision - Setting Aside Lower Courts' Orders - The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Sessions Judge and the High Court, directing the Magistrate to proceed with the matter and dispose of the application under the Domestic Violence Act on merits- The appeal was allowed, reinstating the interim maintenance order and remanding the case to the Magistrate for further proceedings. [Para 34]

Referred Cases:

Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. (2002) 7 SCC 518

V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot (2012) 3 SCC 183

C. Mohammed Yunus v. Syed Unissa (1962) 1 SCR 67

Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab (2011) 12 SCC 588

Education Law – Renewal of Recognition of Medical Colleges – Urgent interim directions under Article 142 – Writ petitions filed by medical colleges challenging non-renewal of recognition – Peculiar facts leading to potential vacancies in medical seats for the academic year 2014-15 – Supreme Court directed immediate compliance verification/inspection despite time constraints – Interim directions permitting admissions based on undertakings by colleges – Directions issued to ensure compliance with MCI regulations and government fee structures – Special case permitting private colleges to admit students based on undertakings similar to Government colleges – Matter to be further considered for final decision regarding Priya Gupta judgment. [Paras 1-14]

Educational Policy – Judicial Intervention – Court noted critical shortage of physicians and potential loss of medical seats due to non-renewal – Interim relief granted to ensure increased physician numbers in future – Directions given to Central Government and State Authorities for immediate implementation – Wide publicity of Court's order mandated in the interest of students. [Para 3, 12]

Decision – Interim Orders on Renewal of Medical College Recognition – Supreme Court directed immediate interim measures to allow admissions for 2014-15 based on undertakings by medical institutions – Final hearing scheduled for December 2014 – Emphasis on public interest and addressing shortage of medical professionals – Institutions directed to submit compliance details by 1st October 2014. [Paras 7, 11, 13]

Referred Cases:

Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, AIR 2012 SC 2413

Evidence Law - Admissibility of Electronic Records - Proof Requirements – Civil Appeal challenging the High Court’s dismissal of an election petition. The main issue was the admissibility of electronic records (CDs) as evidence without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Supreme Court held that electronic records must be accompanied by a certificate as per Section 65B for admissibility, overruling the previous judgment in State (N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) which allowed for secondary evidence under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. Electronic records not meeting Section 65B criteria are inadmissible. [Paras 6-23]

Election Law - Corrupt Practices - Proof Standard – Appeal against the High Court’s rejection of allegations of corrupt practices in an election. The appellant alleged that defamatory leaflets and CDs were used to prejudice the election results. The Supreme Court emphasized that allegations of corrupt practices must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, similar to criminal charges. The appellant failed to prove that the leaflets were published with the respondent’s consent or that the electronic evidence met the admissibility requirements. Thus, the appeal was dismissed. [Paras 24-41]

Role of Consent in Election Offenses – Analysis – Held – Consent must be explicitly proven and cannot be inferred solely from knowledge or association. Mere knowledge of the publication or distribution of defamatory material does not amount to consent under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. [Paras 30-31]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s judgment. The appellant’s failure to meet the evidentiary standards for both the electronic records and the alleged corrupt practices led to the dismissal. There were no orders as to costs. [Paras 40-41]

Referred Cases:

P.C. Thomas vs. P.M. Ismail and Others, AIR 2010 SC 905

State (N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, AIR 2005 SC 3820

Charan Lal Sahu and Others vs. Giani Zail Singh and Another, AIR 1984 SC 309

Ram Sharan Yadav vs. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh and Others, AIR 1985 SC 24

Sheopat Singh vs. Harish Chandra and Another, AIR 1960 SC 1217

Ch. Razik Ram vs. Ch. Jaswant Singh Chouhan and Others, AIR 1975 SC 667

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

FULL BENCH

ANVAR P.V. — AppellantVs.P.K. BASHEER & ORS — Respondent

( Before : R.M. Lodha, C.J.; Rohinton Fali Nariman, J; Kurian Joseph, J )

Civil Appeal No. 4226 of 2012

Decided on : 18-09-2014

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 22A, Section 3, Section 45A, Section 59, Section 62, Section 63, Section 65, Section 65A, Section 65B, Section 65B(1), Section 65B(2), Section 65B(4)

Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 79A

Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 - Section 69

Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 100(1), Section 123(2), Section 123(4)

Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956 - Section 60

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999 - Section 60

Cases Referred

P.C. Thomas Vs. P.M. Ismail and Others, AIR 2010 SC 905 : (2009) 11 JT 548 : (2009) 12 SCALE 235 : (2009) 10 SCC 239 : (2009) 15 SCR 125 : (2010) 1 UJ 95 : (2009) AIRSCW 5634 : (2009) 6 Supreme 503

State (N.C.T. of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, AIR 2005 SC 3820 : (2005) CriLJ 3950 : (2005) 11 SCC 600 : (2005) 3 SCR 79 Supp : (2005) AIRSCW 4146 : (2005) 5 Supreme 414

Charan Lal Sahu and Others Vs. Giani Zail Singh and Another, AIR 1984 SC 309 : (1983) 2 SCALE 961 : (1984) 1 SCC 390 : (1984) 2 SCR 6 : (1984) 16 UJ 873

Ram Sharan Yadav Vs. Thakur Muneshwar Nath Singh and Others, AIR 1985 SC 24 : (1984) 2 SCALE 687 : (1984) 4 SCC 649 : (1985) 1 SCR 1089 : (1985) 17 UJ 229

Sheopat Singh Vs. Harish Chandra and Another, AIR 1960 SC 1217

Ch. Razik Ram Vs. Ch. Jaswant Singh Chouhan and Others, AIR 1975 SC 667 : (1975) 4 SCC 769

Final Result : Dismissed

Domestic Violence – Matrimonial Dispute – Maintenance – Civil Appeal against the High Court order denying the appellant’s claim for residence in the matrimonial home and interim maintenance – Supreme Court reviews the grievances stemming from alleged forceful eviction from the matrimonial home and disputes regarding the subsistence of marriage – Court concurs with High Court that the appellant’s claims involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be resolved in writ proceedings – Emphasizes the need for these issues to be addressed in the appropriate proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate. [Paras 2-12]

Restoration of Suit – Procedural Guidance – Held – Supreme Court directs that the appellant may seek restoration of the dismissed Suit No. 51/2008 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi – Orders interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000 per month to continue if the suit is restored and directs expedited disposal of the suit. [Paras 13-16]

Decision – Restoration and Maintenance – Court grants the appellant liberty to file for restoration of the dismissed suit within four weeks – Upon restoration, interim maintenance to continue at Rs. 25,000 per month until the final disposal of the suit – Directs the Metropolitan Magistrate to decide the suit expeditiously within four months of restoration. [Paras 14-16]

Referred Cases:

Ramanarayan Popli v. CBI (2003) SCC (Crl.) 869

P.K. Narayanan v. State of Kerala (1995) 1 SCC 142

Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC Online SC 784

Hari and Anr. v. State of UP 2021 SCC Online SC 1131

Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat (1999) 8 SCC 624

State through Superintendent of Police v. Nalini & Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 253

Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 13 SCC 1

Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 11 SCC 1

State of Haryana v. Krishan (2017) 8 SCC 204

Phula Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2014 SC 1256

Indrakunwar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2023 SCCOnline 1364

Chandran v. State of Kerala (2011) 5 SCC 161

P.N. Krishna Lal v. Govt. of Kerala 1995 Supp (2) SCC 187

Mekala Sivaiah v. State of A.P. (2022) 8 SCC 253

Ravasaheb and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023) 5 SCC 391

Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Quashing of dealership allotment - Civil Appeals arising from the automatic allotment issue following the cancellation of original allotment - Examination of whether second-ranked candidates are entitled to automatic allotment when the first-ranked candidate's allotment is canceled due to political connections or other extraneous considerations.

Allotment Cancellation and Automatic Entitlement - Analysis - Held - When the selection process for dealership allotments is vitiated by extraneous considerations, the entire selection is compromised, negating automatic entitlement for second-ranked candidates - Court emphasized the necessity of a fresh selection process to ensure fairness and merit-based allotments. [Paras 1-29]

Decision - Appeals Allowed, Orders Quashed - The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's orders granting dealership allotments to the second-ranked candidates, ruling that the entire selection process is vitiated in cases of irregular allotments influenced by extraneous factors, and mandated a fresh selection process. [Para 29]

Referred Cases:

Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 673

Ritu Mahajan v. Indian Oil Corporation and Others (2009) 3 SCC 506

Mukund Swarup Mishra v. Union of India (2007) 2 SCC 536

Awadesh Mani Tripathi v. Union of India (SLP (C) No. 34226/2009)

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Ramesh Chand Trivedi (Civil Appeal No. 8586 of 2010)

Raj Bala v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 7718 of 1995)

Anil Kumar Singh v. Chairman, Dealers Selection Board (Civil Appeal Nos. 2012-2014 of 2003)

Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of DRT vs. Civil Courts - Civil appeals addressing whether suits involving counter-claims or set-offs filed by debtors against banks should be adjudicated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act) or by Civil Courts - Supreme Court analyzes conflicting precedents and refers the matter to a larger bench for resolution. [Paras 1-15]

Exclusive Jurisdiction of DRT - Counter-claims and Set-offs - The issue involves determining if the DRT has exclusive jurisdiction to hear counter-claims and set-offs within its proceedings or if such matters can be tried by Civil Courts independently. Conflicting judgments in prior cases (United Bank of India v. Abhijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Indian Bank v. ABS Marine Products Pvt. Ltd., State Bank of India v. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd., and Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation) necessitate clarity. [Paras 7-12]

Transfer of Suits - Consent Requirement - Whether independent suits by borrowers against banks can be transferred to the DRT for joint trial with the consent of both parties. Supreme Court emphasizes the need for explicit consent based on conflicting judicial opinions. [Paras 10-12, 15]

Referral to Larger Bench - Legal Clarification - Due to inconsistencies in judicial interpretations, questions regarding the jurisdiction of DRT and the transfer of suits involving counter-claims or set-offs to the DRT are referred to a larger bench for definitive legal clarification. [Paras 13-15]

Interim Relief - Stay of Proceedings - Request for stay of proceedings in pending civil suits before the Calcutta High Court was denied, noting the lack of substantial progress in the suits and the adequacy of future orders to address the Respondent's claims. [Para 16]

Referred Cases:

Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (2009) 8 SCC 646

United Bank of India v. Abhijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 7 SCC 357

Indian Bank v. ABS Marine Products Pvt. Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 72

State Bank of India v. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 97

Jit Ram Shiv Kumar v. State of Haryana (1980) 3 SCR 689

Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. (1986) 2 SCR 123

Criminal Law – Conviction for Rape and House Trespass – Appeal against Conviction – Prosecutrix alleged appellant entered her house and committed rape at knife-point – Discrepancies noted in prosecutrix's statements and medical evidence – Affidavit by prosecutrix exonerating appellant – Trial and High Court overlooked material contradictions – Supreme Court evaluated reliability of prosecutrix's testimony and statutory presumptions under Indian Evidence Act – Benefit of doubt accorded to appellant – Conviction set aside. [Paras 1-8]

Discrepancies in Prosecution Evidence – Analysis – Prosecutrix's varying statements regarding presence and actions of appellant – Affidavit disowning initial allegations – Medical report showing no signs of struggle or seminal stains – Prosecutrix's husband's enmity with appellant noted – Contradictions between prosecutrix's and husband’s testimonies – Supreme Court found these discrepancies sufficient to doubt prosecution's case. [Paras 4-7]

Statutory Presumptions and Judicial Approach – Reiterated – Testimony of prosecutrix should ordinarily be given weight comparable to that of an injured witness – Absence of corroboration not necessarily fatal – However, inherent contradictions and infirmities in prosecutrix's testimony can negate its reliability – References made to landmark judgments emphasizing careful judicial scrutiny of such testimonies in the context of Indian societal norms. [Para 6]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence of appellant under Sections 376 and 450 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Emphasis on ensuring justice by considering totality of evidence and inherent contradictions in prosecution's case. [Paras 8-10]

Referred Cases:

Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753

State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, AIR 1990 SC 658

State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Others, AIR 1996 SC 1393

Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Independent Investigation - Petition under Article 32 seeking direction for CBI or SIT investigation into police inaction during the incident of beating students at Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai - Court finds matter not proceeded with requisite seriousness by state authorities but refrains from ordering CBI/SIT investigation at this stage - Directs expeditious trial by VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai. [Paras 1-16, 23]

Human Rights Violations - Police Inaction - Allegations against Tamil Nadu Police for failing to intervene in a student clash and subsequent harassment of petitioners by registering false cases - Status reports indicate nominal departmental action against delinquent police officers - Court emphasizes need for prompt redressal of human rights grievances and functioning of SHRC. [Paras 1-14, 18-21]

State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) - Vacancy of Chairperson - Office of Chairperson SHRC, Tamil Nadu vacant for over three years - Court directs the State to expedite the appointment of a Chairperson in accordance with Section 21(2)(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. [Paras 18-21]

Decision - Disposition of Writ Petition - Court disposes of the writ petition directing VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai to expedite the trial of cases related to the Law College incident and file periodic progress reports with the High Court of Madras. The High Court is requested to monitor the progress of these cases. Additionally, the State of Tamil Nadu is directed to fill the vacancy of the Chairperson of SHRC expeditiously. [Paras 23, 21]

Referred Cases:

State of West Bengal and Others Vs. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others, AIR 2010 SC 1476

Criminal Law - Conviction and Acquittal - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Criminal Appeal against High Court's confirmation of conviction and State's appeal against acquittal of co-accused -

Concurrent Findings of Fact: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court regarding the guilt of Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3), and Shamsher Singh (A-7) for offences under Sections 302 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC, resulting in life imprisonment and a fine. The evidence of eyewitnesses Chanda Singh (PW-6) and Sham Singh (PW-7), coupled with medical evidence, was found credible. The Court upheld the conviction citing the consistency and reliability of the witnesses’ testimonies despite challenges regarding their conduct and delays in FIR registration. [Paras 1-28]

Delay in FIR: The Court ruled that the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained due to the urgency in attending to the injured, thereby dismissing the argument that it was fatal to the prosecution’s case. [Paras 20-23]

Acquittal of Co-accused: Appeals against the acquittal of Balkar Singh (A-4), Ranbir Singh (A-6), and Charan Singh (A-8) were dismissed. The High Court’s acceptance of Ranbir Singh’s alibi and the lack of corroborative medical evidence against Balkar Singh and Charan Singh were deemed reasonable and did not warrant interference. [Paras 32-37]

Behaviour of Witnesses: The Court emphasized the varying natural human reactions to witnessing a crime, rejecting the argument that Chanda Singh’s conduct was unnatural and thereby discrediting his testimony. [Paras 13-17]

Evidence and Recovery: The recovery of weapons and their forensic linkage to the crime corroborated the prosecution's narrative against Dilawar Singh, Yash Pal, and Shamsher Singh, further solidifying their convictions. [Para 26]

Plea of Alibi: The plea of alibi by Ranbir Singh (A-6) was substantiated through credible evidence, leading to his acquittal by the High Court. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court as it found no compelling reason to reverse the acquittal. [Paras 33-34]

Decision- Convictions Upheld: The appeals by Dilawar Singh (A-1), Yash Pal (A-3), and Shamsher Singh (A-7) were dismissed, and their convictions and sentences were upheld. Acquittals Upheld: The appeals against the acquittal of Balkar Singh (A-4), Ranbir Singh (A-6), and Charan Singh (A-8) by the State and Chanda Singh were also dismissed.

Referred Cases:

Sri Sambhu Das @ Bijoy Das and Another vs. State of Assam, AIR 2010 SC 3300

Ganga Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 3123

Rana Partap and Others vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 680

State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Mast Ram, AIR 2004 SC 5056

Lahu Kamlakar Patil and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 1 ABR 633

State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta, AIR 2012 SC 1

Chandrappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) CriLJ 2136