Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)(n) -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(2)(v) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Rape – Promise to marry – Quashing of FIR -- No material on record to substantiate the allegations of cheating or sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage – de-facto complainant is a highly educated woman aged 30 year, in the chat, she admitted that she was manipulative and was trying to “get a green card holder” -- It would not be difficult for her to trap the next one -- She would not waste time with the accused appellant and needs to “invest on the next victim” -- She would irritate her victims to the extent that they dump her, and she could happily start with the next one -- She also stated that she was using the accused-appellant -- Accused/ appellant was absolutely justified in panicking and backing out from the proposed marriage upon coming to know of the aggressive sexual behaviour and the obsessive nature of the de-facto complainant -- It cannot be said that the offence was committed by appellant/ accused with the de-facto complainant on the ground that she belonged to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community – FIRs and all proceedings consequence thereof quashed in entirety.

(Para 22-31)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120B, 420, 468, 471 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) -- Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Cheating, forgery and corruption in bank loan – OTS with Bank – Effect of – Dispute culminated in a comprehensive One Time Settlement under which the Bank has received the entire outstanding amount -- Recovery proceedings before the tribunal have been dismissed as settled and no residual claim survives -- Bank has not raised any objection to the closure of the matter and has issued formal acknowledgments of satisfaction -- In identical proceedings the charge sheets quashed – Settlement having taken place after the alleged offence and there being no continuing public interest, the Court saw no justification for allowing the matter to proceed further found appropriate to quash the proceedings -- Appeals allowed.

(Para 7-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227, 228 -- Abatement of suicide – Discharge of accused -- No normal person could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a complaint by a student, would result in such tragedy due to the student so scolded taking his own life -- No mens rea can be attributed to the appellant much less, with regard to abatement of suicide committed by the deceased -- Appeal allowed, order framing charge against the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC set aside.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 22 – Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 50 -- NDPS – PMLA – Discharge in NDPS case – Continuity in Money laundering offence – Permissibility of -- Money laundering itself is a separate crime, distinct from the original (or scheduled) offence like corruption, drug trafficking, fraud, etc. -- Even if the scheduled offence is tried under Indian Penal Code, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Act, etc., money laundering is prosecuted separately under PMLA -- Offence u/s 3 is dependent on the scheduled offence, but it is a separate and independent offence once the activity of laundering begins -- Mere discharge or quashing  of a FIR by a competent court does not automatically result in the quashing of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 -- Discharge in the predicate offence may influence the procedures under the PMLA; however, it cannot be regarded as an automatic or definitive basis for nullifying the ECIR.

(Para 30, 40, 41)

B. Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 50 -- PMLA – Not an accused in scheduled offence – Effect of -- A person can be prosecuted for money laundering even if they are not directly involved in the commission of the scheduled offence, so long as they are involved in the laundering process -- A person accused of an offence u/s 3 PMLA need not necessarily be shown as an accused in the scheduled offence.

(Para 31, 32)

C. Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), Section 3, 50 -- Discharge in the predicate offence -- Summon u/s 50 of PMLA – Nature of -- Enforcement Directorate's authority to summon individuals u/s 50 is intended for the acquisition of factual evidence pertaining to money laundering offences; obtaining a summons under this section does not inherently indicate that one is an accused in a money laundering investigation -- This indicates that the individual may have information or documents pertinent to the investigation -- Issuance of summons is a fundamental component in the execution of a fair and unbiased investigation -- It affords the relevant parties an opportunity to be heard, to articulate their case, and to address the allegations levied against them -- Issuance of summons under the PMLA should be regarded as an essential element of due process, intended to advance the rule of law and bolster public trust in the legal system -- Discharge in the predicate offence, albeit substantial, does not, as a legal principle, impact the ongoing validity of the summons -- Mere discharge of the petitioner concerning the predicate offence does not, in itself, grant the Court the power to annul the summons.

(Para 34-39)

Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Section 135 – Theft of electricity – Penalty – Fine – Compensation -- Section 135(1)(a)(b) of ‘the Act’, gives discretion to the learned Trial Court either to impose upto one year imprisonment or fine of Rs.5,000/- -- Trial Court did not sentence the Appellant to any term as imprisonment, it imposed an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- towards fine and default imprisonment -- In an audit an amount of Rs.44,850/- was arrived, as appellant has indulged in power pilferage – Held, section 135(1)(a)(b) of ‘the Act’ does not confer imposition of Rs.2,70,000/- towards fine -- Petitioner has been in jail for the past fifteen days, he is aged about 84 years at present -- If an amount of Rs.20,000/- is directed to be paid towards compensation to the Corporation, it would meet the ends of justice – After the compensation of Rs.20,000/- is paid by the Appellant, Appellant be released forthwith.

(Para 5-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 397, 401 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Settled amount paid to bank -- Respondent-Bank shown no objection to compounding of offence -- Object and purpose of enactment is to provide a compensatory mechanism for expeditious recovery of money as opposed to punishing the accused -- Amendment carried out in the year 2002 in the NI Act intended to make the nature of offence u/s 138 of the NI Act as a civil wrong while making it compoundable -- Conviction and order of sentence quashed/ set aside -- Petitioner acquitted.

(Para 3, 5-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379B, 325, 341, 34 – Appeal against conviction – Compounding after conviction in snatching case – Matter has been amicably settled between the parties -- Appeals allowed, as a result of compounding, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Sections 379-B, 325, 341, 34 IPC, whereby appellant sentenced to RI for five years and a fine of Rs. 10,500/- along with all consequential proceeding quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 14, 15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379, 411 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- M.P. Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2022, Rules 3, 4 – Quashing of FIR -- Theft – Excavation of sand by Panchayat -- Exception under Rule 4 granted to the Gram Panchayat for transportation and storage of minor minerals quarried from the Government lands for public works -- This rule cannot be interpreted to the extent that the Gram Panchayat can commit theft or can illegally excavate the sand -- State Government is the owner of every mineral and therefore the illegal excavation of the same would amount to commission of theft -- It is not the case of applicant that the sand was purchased by the Gram Panchayat and the sand in question was quarried from Govt. land in legal manner -- Court can quash the proceedings only if the uncontroverted allegations do not make out an offence -- Application dismissed.

(Para 5-10)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) -- Corruption case -- Demand of bribe – Presumption – Tests were conducted on the hands of the Appellant which proved negative --  However, money was recovered from the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the Appellant’s motorcycle -- Factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the Appellant and complainant not proved -- In such circumstances, the presumption u/s 20 of the Act would not militate against the Appellant -- Conviction and sentence set aside, extending to him the benefit of doubt.

(Para 6, 21, 22)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 186, 351, 353, 356 – Obstruction in discharge of official duties – Criminal force – Assault – Use of criminal force or assault on a public servant is essential to attract Section 353 IPC -- Physical movement of the labourers would not amount to use of force far less criminal force on a public servant – Offence u/s 353 IPC not made out -- Obstruction to a public servant must be done with the requisite mens rea i.e. to prevent the latter from discharging his official duty -- Members of the social organization were of the impression that bonded labourers/ children ought to be interrogated at a neutral place i.e. Police Station whereas the officers wanted to interrogate them at the site -- When profile of the allegations emerging from the factual matrix of the case renders existence of mens rea patently absurd or inherently improbable, such prosecution is liable to be quashed as an abuse of process of law.

(Para 22-28)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 186, 353 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 155(2) -- Obstruction in discharge of official duties – Non-cognizable offence – Procedure of -- Section 186 is a non-cognizable offence and in absence of ingredients of Section 353 (cognizable offence) disclosed in the FIR, prior permission of Magistrate under Section 155 (2) Cr.PC was necessary to register FIR -- No such permission was obtained rendering the registration of FIR and ensuing investigation bad in law.

(Para 31)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 186 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 195 -- Obstruction in discharge of official duties – Non-cognizable offence – Procedure of -- Cognizance of offence u/s 186 IPC was taken on a police report in breach of Section 195 Cr.PC -- Section 195, inter alia, provides no court shall take cognizance of offence u/s 186 save and except on a complaint in writing by the aggrieved public servant or his superior -- Cognizance taken of the offence u/s 186 on a police report/chargesheet is impermissible in law.

(Para 32)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 324 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of criminal proceedings – Offence under other sections 323, 504, 427, 447 and 506 of the IPC are compoundable as per Section 320 of the CrPC -- In exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the offences alleged against the appellant u/s 307 and 324 IPC shall also be quashed as the other offences alleged against the appellant are compoundable u/s 320 of the CrPC – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 5-10)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Petition for quashing of complaint – Reasoned order – Requirement of – Duty of High Court -- If the Division Bench of the High Court was not inclined to even issue notice to the respondents, then reasons ought to have been assigned for that purpose, or in the alternative, notice should have been issued to the respondents and after giving a fair opportunity to both sides, dismissed the complaint on merits – In the absence of any of the aforesaid options, impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice -- Matter remanded back to High Court with a request to dispose the same on its own merits and in accordance with law.

(Para 6, 7)

A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(d)(ii) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B -- Corruption case -- In a case of alleged criminal conspiracy, the prosecution is duty bound to prove by cogent, credible, and admissible evidence that the accused persons had a meeting of minds and participated in a common design.

(Para 14)

B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(d)(ii), 20 -- Corruption case – Demand and acceptance of bribe -- In the absence of demand and acceptance, the presumption u/s 20 of the P.C. Act does not arise and conviction cannot be thus sustained.

(Para 18)

C. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(d)(ii), 20 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B – Corruption case – Conspiracy – Presumption – Reversal of burden -- Tehsildar, who employed co-accused BK and was shown to be one of the primary beneficiaries, was not accorded sanction and therefore, did not face trial -- Appellants, despite not being shown to be actual beneficiaries or participants, were convicted on a generalized theory of “connivance” – Held, mere association or presence of a person in a place where a crime is committed does not ipso facto establish participation or conspiracy -- Reversal of burden, in a trial u/s 13(1)(d)(ii) of the P.C. Act and Section 120-B of the IPC, where prosecution has not discharged its primary burden is certainly not permissible in law – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 18-20)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal breach of trust – Cheating – Civil dispute -- Quashing of FIR -- As per the FIR, the goods were to be exported out of India -- Respondent no. 2, since did not possess an import/export license, the appellant had asked respondent no. 2 to export the goods through M/s. Oswal Overseas -- Respondent no. 2 has in all exported sarees worth Rs. 34,71,344/- -- U/s 482 of the Code, Court will examine the crux of the complaint -- Question is whether such non-payment of the sale price can be an offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating at the hands of the second respondent -- Answer is clearly no -- Continuation of the FIR against the appellant is an abuse of the process of law, and at best, the non-payment of the sale price could be a civil dispute – Appeal allowed, FIR quashed.

(Para 12-17)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 407, 420 – Cheating – Sentence of imprisonment reduced -- Appellant is a 71-year-old individual who is afflicted with various age-related ailments -- Medical documentation further reveals that the Appellant is a diabetic person and has a history of having suffered three heart attacks -- That apart, the incident is of the year 1994 i.e. more than 30 years old causing mental trauma and agony as faced by the Appellant -- All these factors in the facts and circumstances of this case persuade Court to take a lenient view -- Sentences imposed u/s 407 and 420 of IPC reduced to 2 years and 6 months of rigorous imprisonment from 5 years with fine and default punishment unchanged.

(Para 29, 30)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 18 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 415 -- NDPS case – Appeal from conviction – Sentence reduced -- Recovery of 500 grams of opium -- Appellant convicted for having in possession of contraband, attracting the offence for which no minimum punishment has been prescribed -- Appellant has already undergone actual sentence of 01 year 08 months and 12 days -- FIR was lodged on 30.04.2019 and the appellant has been suffering the agony of trial for last about 06 years and desires to live a peaceful life – Sentence reduced to already undergone.

(Para 8-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304A -- Death by rash and negligent driving – Acquittal -- PW.1/ complainant deposed the driver of the car was speeding, however, nowhere stated that the accused’s driving involved traces of rash and negligent disposition -- Accident occurred on the left side of the road and the car in question was found on the right direction almost left side of the road -- Deceased was inebriated and under the influence of alcohol when he rode the motorbike -- Mere driving of vehicle in high speed neither amounts to negligence nor rashness in itself -- Degree of negligence of the accused cannot be ascertained on applying the ‘Principle of Foreseeability and Proximity’ since the accused was driving his vehicle in right direction – Conviction order set aside.

(Para 15-20)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 323, 504, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape – Refusal to marry – Quashing of FIR -- Relationship was not merely of knowing each other but of living together as a couple under one roof in a rented accommodation -- FIR does not allege that physical relationship was established only because there was a promise of marriage -- Besides, physical relationship continued for over two years without a complaint in between -- A presumption would arise of there being a valid consent – In a long drawn live-in relationship, occasions may arise where parties in that relationship express their desire or wish to formalize the same by a seal of marriage, but that expression of desire, or wish, by itself would not be indicative of relationship being a consequence of that expression of desire or wish – On ground of refusal to marry, the appellant cannot be subjected to prosecution for the offence of rape -- First information report and the consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 10-18)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 -- Rape -- Promise to marry – Intention -- To establish a false promise, it would have to be demonstrated that the maker of the promise had no intention of upholding his word at the time of making the promise.

(Para 11)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379A, 34 -- Mobile snatching case – Acquittal -- Delay of 5 days in FIR – Non providing of ownership of mobile -- Appellants were not named in the FIR – No Test identification parade/ TIP – If no test identification parade is held, then it will be totally unsafe to rely upon the bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in the Court -- Small recovery of sums of Rs.1600/- and Rs.1400/- -- Inordinate and unexplained delay in reporting the matter to the police -- Recovery of money is not sufficient to prove the allegations of snatching -- Held, the trial Court had committed a grave error in convicting the appellants-accused – Conviction and sentence u/s 379-A read with Section 34 of IPC set aside.

(Para 11-21)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379A, 34 -- Mobile snatching case -- Identity of snatchers – Proof of -- PW-2, stated that accused present in the Court were the persons who had snatched his mobile phone, but he had not given details of physical description of the snatchers like their complexion, height or features or about the clothing as worn by them in the complaint -- Occurrence took place at 11 PM and it was dark at the time -- It was not explained by this witness as to what was the basis on which he could identify the accused persons -- Possibility of this witness having seen the miscreants and identifying them in dark seems very remote -- Identification of the accused persons not established beyond doubt and this fact has created a serious dent in the story of the prosecution with regard to the involvement of the accused in the subject crime.

(Para 17)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379A, 34 -- Mobile snatching case – Recovery of small amount – Identity of currency notes -- Recovery of sums of Rs.1600/- and Rs.1400/- at instance of accused --  Not proved to be having any specific identification mark -- Small amount could easily be planted -- Alleged recovery was effected on 28.07.2020 whereas the occurrence had taken place on 09.07.2019 -- It does not appeal to reason that the appellants would keep such small amounts of money for such a long time with them fully knowing that the same being incriminating piece of evidence could be used against them for proving commission of the subject crime -- Such like currency notes could be easily available in market -- Recovery of money at the instance of the accused could not be considered to be a circumstance sufficient to prove that the appellants had snatched any mobile phone.

(Para 18, 19)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 500, 34 – Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a)(b)(c) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of defamation complaint – Appellant-homebuyers, dissatisfied with the services provided by developer, erected a banner detailing their grievances -- Peaceful and orderly protest made without using offensive or abusive language -- It could not be said that the appellants transgressed into the offending zone -- Their case wholly falls within the sweep, scope and ambit of exception 9 to Section 499 -- Their peaceful protest is protected by Article 19(1)(a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India -- Criminal proceedings levelled against them, if allowed to continue, will be a clear abuse of process -- Complaint along with the order issuing summons to the appellants u/s 500 read with Section 34 of the IPC quashed and set aside.

(Para 30-35)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaints – FIR u/s 420 IPC by accused against complainant party – Quashing of FIR – Finding recorded by the jurisdictional criminal court in 138 NI Act proceedings between the parties would be binding to both the parties in any subsequent proceedings involving the same issue – Respondent cannot maintain a prosecution on the basis of allegations which were precisely his defence in the earlier proceedings wherein he was an accused -- Criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed on this ground alone -- Impugned criminal proceedings instituted against the appellant for offences u/s 420 of the IPC, quashed.

(Para 12, 20-25)

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (3 of 1984), Section 3, 5 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Damages to public property – Encroachment over Gram Panchayat land – Adjudication of rights -- Necessity of -- Quashing of criminal proceedings -- As far as criminal proceeding for illegal encroachment, damage or trespass over the land belonging to Gram Sabha is concerned, the same can be undertaken but it would be subject to the adjudication of rights of the parties over the land in dispute as the said determination can be done only by the revenue court -- Continuation of criminal proceedings, being an abuse of process of the Court, ends of the justice requires that the said proceedings be quashed -- Entire proceedings of the Criminal Case quashed.

(Para 7-9)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 5(j) (ii), 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 -- POCSO – Rape – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Parties have settled the dispute amicably and have also verified the contents of the compromise -- Cognizance/ summoning order, charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings quashed.

(Para 1-4)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 – Dowry case -- Summoning of additional accused – Quashing of -- Acquittal of main accused – Effect of -- If main accused are acquitted, no criminal proceedings can be sustained against other co-accused on the same set of witnesses – Whenever, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction valuable time of the Court should not be wasted -- Criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue – Petition allowed, summoning the accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for facing trial quashed.

(Para 8-10)

Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 (28 of 1988), Section 8, 9 (As amended in 2012) – Minimum sentence prescribed – Effect of -- Section 9 does not prescribe a minimum sentence for the offence punishable under it -- By amendment minimum sentence made 2 years -- Amendment came into effect on 1st October 2012, whereas the offence was committed on 17th June 2010 and the order of sentence was issued on 11/13th November 2010 -- Said amendment would not be applicable -- Appellant has already been granted remission for the main offence u/s 302 IPC -- However, following the date of remission, the appellant has undergone an additional incarceration of approximately 10 months -- Sentence already undergone would subserve the ends of justice for the offence punishable under the Prisoners Act, 1988.

(Para 10-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 190, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 457, 427, 323, 504, 506, 448, 511, 120B -- Cognizance by court -- Summoning order in printed form – Effect of -- Summoning order passed in a printed proforma by filing up the blanks reveals that the Trial Court has not applied its judicial mind and in a very cursory manner the Trial Court took cognizance -- Summoning order is cryptic -- Cognizance/ summoning order quashed, Trial Court directed to exercise discretionary power and decide afresh while taking cognizance on the charge sheet after taking into consideration the entire materials and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

(Para 5-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2)(f), 417, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 – Rape – Promise to marry -- Discharge of accused -- Appellant and the Complainant came in contact in 2014, during the pendency of matrimonial disputes arising out of the Complainant’s marriage -- It is from day one, she had knowledge and was conscious of the fact, that the Appellant was in a subsisting marriage, though separated – Complainant was receiving financial help from the Appellant for herself and her son --  Complainant cannot plead ‘misconception of fact’ or ‘rape on the false pretext to marry’ -- No evidence to conclude that there was any fraudulent or dishonest inducement – No criminal intimidation -- There is a growing tendency of resorting to initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour -- Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry, in the event of a fall out -- It is such lis that amounts to an abuse of process of law -- Court deemed fit to terminate the proceedings at the stage of charge itself – Appeal allowed.

(Para 14-22)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375,  376, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 – Rape – Discharge of accused – Rape – Promise to marry -- Mere fact that physical relations were established pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case -- An offence u/s 375 IPC could only be made out, if promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations without having any intent of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning, and that such false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations – Ingredients of offences u/s 375/ 506 IPC not established -- Trial Court discharged the accused – High Court in revision set aside the order of discharge has undertaken an exhaustive analysis of the allegations in the FIR, and the Charge-sheet, while failing to consider that at the stage of framing of charges, the court must only adjudicate on the basis of material on record – Order of High Court set aside – Criminal proceedings terminated.

(Para 14-18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (13 of 2006), Section 5(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120B – Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 (17 of 1976), Section 28A – Land acquisition – Corruption – Conspiracy – Quashing of FIR by High Court – Challenge to – Respondent/ Managing Director of the Cooperative Society obtained the lands after verification of the rights on the land from the Collector of the District – Acquisition was for a purpose of developing the land; which has already been completed and allottees of such lands have raised a residential colony in the location – No action u/s 28-A has been taken by the State to repossess the lands – No allegation against the respondent but for a bland allegation of connivance with the officers of the State – No personal benefit even alleged to have accrued to the party respondent – No reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court – Special Leave Petition dismissed.

(Para 1, 2, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Last seen theory -- Prosecution relied on last seen evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and circumstantial evidence including recovery of articles and fingerprints –PW-2 (alleged eyewitness) and PW-12 (last seen witness) disbelieved due to delayed statements – Extra judicial confessional statements disbelieved by High court – Recovery of slippers and a wheel spanner with alleged fingerprints of the accused was held insufficient to establish guilt in absence of a complete and credible chain of circumstantial evidence – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant – Conviction u/s 302 IPC set aside, holding prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.

(Para 6, 7, 19-25)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheating – Quashing of FIR -- Mere breach of promise to repay per se does not infer dishonest intention -- Appellant had clarified he had suffered continuous business setbacks -- Due to losses, he was unable to pay the 2nd non-applicant -- He had sold the coal to a brick manufacturer and suffered losses thereto -- Failure to pay due to unfortunate business losses cannot be clothed with culpability and the process of criminal law utilized to recover outstanding dues -- Proceeding arising out of FIR quashed.

(Para 17-23)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape – Promise to marry – Quashing of FIR -- Promise if any was after the first physical intercourse and even later the allegation was forceful intercourse without any consent -- Allegation of threat and coercion against the victim, to have sexual intercourse with the accused, which even as per the victim’s statement was repeated thrice in the same manner, when she willingly accompanied the accused to a hotel room -- High Court should have interfered u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C -- These proceedings cannot go on -- Proceedings quashed.

(Para 8-13)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118 -- Interested witness -- First cousin’s witness -- It is settled position of law that merely because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and as such are interested witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard their testimony -- The only requirement is that the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.

(Para 9)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 300 Exception IV, 302, 304, Part 1 -- Murder -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Place of incident is near the house of accused persons -- Possibility of a quarrel taking place on account of previous enmity between the accused persons and the deceased; and in a sudden fight in the heat of the moment, the appellant along with the co-accused assaulting the deceased cannot be ruled out -- Weapons used are a stick and the blunt side of the axe, these tools are easily available in any agricultural field -- It therefore cannot be said that there was any premeditation -- Case would not fall under the ambit of Section 302 of IPC and the appellant would be entitled to benefit of Exception IV of Section 300 of IPC -- Appellant has already undergone the sentence of 6 years 10 months – Appellant sentenced to the period already undergone.

(Para 12-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 143, 147, 153 (A), 295, 436, 332 -- Unlawful assembly -- Rioting – Bystander -- Appellants were residents of the same village where riots broke out, therefore their presence at the spot is natural and by itself not incriminating -- More so, because it is not the case of the prosecution that they came with arms or instruments of destruction -- In these circumstances, their presence at the spot could be that of an innocent bystander who had a right to move freely in absence of prohibitory orders -- In such a situation, to sustain their conviction, the prosecution ought to have led some reliable evidence to demonstrate that they were a part of the unlawful assembly and not just spectator -- Here no evidence has come on record to indicate that the appellants incited the mob, or they themselves acted in any manner indicative of them being a part of the unlawful assembly – Appellants’ arrest from the spot is not a guarantee of their culpability -- Mere presence of the appellants at the spot, or their arrest therefrom, was not sufficient to prove that they were a part of the unlawful assembly comprising of more than a thousand people – Appellants acquitted.

(Para 15-18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 378 – Appeal against conviction/ Acquittal -- Huge pendency of criminal appeals in High Courts – Preference of hearing -- Priority is usually given to the hearing of the appeals where the accused are in prison -- The appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail take a backseat -- However, a right balance has to be struck by taking up for hearing even some of the old criminal appeals against conviction where accused are on bail -- If the appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail and especially where a life sentence has been imposed are heard after a decade or more from its filing, if the appeal is dismissed, the question arises of sending the accused back to jail after a long period of more than a decade -- Therefore, it is desirable that certain categories of appeals against conviction where the accused are on bail should be given priority.

(Para 15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 191, 193 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 227, 229 – Maintenance proceedings -- Perjury – False affidavit in court – Burden of proof – Affidavit by wife that she is not gainfully employed -- Petitioner/ husband to prove that she was gainful employee refers to Annexures, however, they relates to the period commencing from 05.04.2013 to 17.05.2024, however, duly sworn affidavit was filed on 27.05.2024 -- No averment that as on the date of filing of the affidavit, respondent No.1/ wife was gainfully employed -- Her past employment would not come in the way of said affidavit -- Burden was on the petitioner to prove the said fact that on the date of giving of the affidavit, respondent No.1/ wife was a gainful employee which is not proved -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 4-6)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Preliminary stage of investigation -- There is no absolute rule that even if the investigation is at a preliminary stage, the Court exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot interfere.

(Para 4)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7(2), 13(1)(d), 20 – Demand and acceptance – Presumption -- Prosecution failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt, the demand of bribe and its acceptance, in a trap laid by the trap team of the ACB -- In that circumstance there is no question of a presumption u/s 20 arising in the case --  Conviction and sentence set aside.

(Para 16)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 207, 216, 293 -- Framing of charge – Fair opportunity before sending to trial -- On 5th November, 2016, the trial Court proceeded to frame charges against the appellant/ accused even though he had been provided with the copies of the relied upon documents on that very day – Till this date the appellant was neither represented by a privately engaged defence counsel nor did the trial Court offer him the services of a legal aid counsel -- Apparently, proper opportunity was not given to the appellant before framing charges against him and sending him for trial.

(Para 15)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376A, 302, 366, 363, 201 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 5, 6 – Rape – Murder – Circumstantial evidence -- Fair trial – Undue haste – Forensic Science Laboratory report was presented on 1st and 3rd December, 2016 and the trial Court took it on record – Order sheets of trial court are  silent  on the aspect of whether the copy of the said FSL report was ever provided to the appellant -- For the first time on 11th January, 2017, on the request being made by the appellant, one Advocate, was appointed as an amicus curiae to represent him in the trial -- Recording of the evidence of prosecution witnesses began on the very same day, i.e., 11th January, 2017, and the process was concluded within 27 days, i.e., on 6th February, 2017 -- During this short period, the amicus curiae appointed to defend the appellant was changed on 31st January, 2017 -- No possibility that the defence counsel could have had a reasonable opportunity to prepare the matter and conduct the cross-examination from the witnesses – Held, trial was not conducted in a fair manner and appellant was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

(Para 13-16, 58)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376A, 302, 366, 363, 201 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 5, 6 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Rape -- murder -- Last seen theory -- Circumstantial evidence – Acquittal -- FIR does not contain a whisper that anyone from the village had seen the child-victim in the company of the appellant, any time prior to her dead body being found -- Conduct of the witnesses in remaining silent and not disclosing to the police regarding they having seen the appellant taking away the child-victim with himself, completely demolishes the prosecution case regarding the theory of last seen -- Appellant acquitted of the charges.

(Para 34, 35, 58)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376A, 302, 366, 363, 201 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 5, 6 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45, 106 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 293 – Rape – Murder -- Circumstantial evidence – Acquittal -- DNA report was merely exhibited in evidence by the Investigating Officer (PW-14) who undeniably is not connected with the report in any manner – Very procedure of collection and forwarding of DNA samples to the FSL is full of lacunae and loopholes – Non-examination of the scientific expert who carried out the DNA profiling is fatal, and the DNA report cannot be admitted in evidence -- Appellant is acquitted of the charges.

(Para 38-40, 58)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder -- Recoveries were made after several days of the incident and no bloodstains etc. were found on the weapons -- PW-15, the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination, deposed that the seized weapons were not shown to him -- Knives etc. were also not produced in court -- All the seizure witnesses turned hostile -- Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot come to the aid of the prosecution -- Clothes of the accused were not seized and sent for forensic examination to find out whether there were any bloodstains --  Medical evidence confirmed multiple stab injuries on his body leading to profuse bleeding and death -- It is for the prosecution to connect the accused to the murder of the deceased by producing credible and legally admissible evidence -- However, no credible evidence at all to connect the accused persons with the homicidal death of deceased -- Appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt -- Conviction and sentence of the appellants set aside.

(Para 21-25)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 377, 328, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 482 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 183, 528 -- Rape -- Habitual complainant – Quashing of FIR -- Apart from her statement in the FIR and her statement u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C./ 183 of BNSS, there is no other evidence on record -- Most concerning is that the same respondent has filed nearly identical cases at least against eight other individuals (nine cases in total) -- These FIRs, lodged in different Police Stations across Delhi, involve offenses u/s 34, 328, 354, 354A, 354D, 376, 377, 506, and 509 of IPC 00 -- After lodging the FIR, the complainant has not cooperated with the investigation and has not appeared despite being served with notice -- Appellant is a retired Army officer and the author of five books -- Considering the nature of the case and the cumulative circumstances, the criminal case initiated against the appellant is nothing but an abuse of the process of law -- This is precisely the nature of case where the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (as per new act, under Section 528 B.N.S.S.) and should have quashed the proceedings -- FIR quashed.

(Para 5-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 452 – Rape – No medical examination -- Acquittal -- Prosecutrix and her parents themselves never fully co-operated with the medical staff, thereby adversely impacting the credibility of their version of events -- Non-allowance of medical examination by an alleged rape-victim raises negative inferences against them – Prosecutrix was 19 years old at the time of the alleged occurrence – High Court has microscopically examined the entire evidence before firmly opining that the accused-respondent deserves the benefit of the doubt – Appeal against judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court, dismissed.

(Para 10-13)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 162 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106, 145 -- Contradiction in statement – Circumstantial evidence – Acquittal -- Significant improvements and omissions in the evidence of PW-3 -- Omissions are so relevant that they become contradictions in view of the Explanation to Section 162 of the CR.P.C. -- Thus, it is very difficult to accept the testimony of PW-3 as reliable -- PW-1 is not a witness to the theory of last seen together -- Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the theory of last seen together was proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt -- When the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established -- There must be a chain of circumstances so complete as not to leave any ground for any conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused -- Two significant circumstances forming the chain have not been established -- Conviction and sentence set aside

(Para 10-12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 162 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 145 -- Contradiction in statement – Proof of -- Portion of the prior statement shown to the witness for contradicting the witness must be proved through the investigating officer -- Unless the said portion of the prior statement used for contradiction is duly proved, it cannot be reproduced in the deposition of the witnesses -- The correct procedure is that the Trial Judge should mark the portions of the prior statements used for contradicting the witness -- The said portions can be put in bracket and marked as AA, BB, etc. -- The marked portions cannot form a part of the deposition unless the same are proved.

(Para 11)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating – Acquittal – Money taken for sending abroad -- Incident happened in the year 2001, however, written complaint made after two years -- In the complaint, nowhere, mentioned that complainant or his father had arranged an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by taking loan or by arranging the same from their relatives -- Nothing brought on record to show that any travel agency is being run by the accused persons -- Prosecution has neither proved source of amount nor the fact that who induced the complainant to pay the amount and to whom the payment was made -- As such, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt – Acquittal order, upheld.

(Para 5, 7)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal -- Power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favours the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards his guilt -- Presumption of innocence further gets entrenched on the acquittal of accused by the trial Court.

(Para 6)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 506 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Domestic violence -- There may be situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to the victim, and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation -- Hence, implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts to them and proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law.

(Para 35)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 506 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Domestic violence – Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Nothing on record to show that the parents witnessed any of the incidents of physical harassment of the complainant at the instance of the appellants -- Complainant in her complaints did not assign any specific role to the appellants concerning the demands of dowry and physical and mental harassment of the complainant, except for making a sweeping allegation without specific details -- Appellants do not live with the principal accused -- While the marriage took place in Pondicherry and the complainant lived with her husband and mother-in-law in Chennai, the appellants are residents of Hyderabad -- Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 37-41)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173, 482 -- Abetment of suicide – Quashing of proceedings -- Charge-sheet, as it stands, appears to have proceeded in an unidimensional manner by accepting the version of the complainant and his family members as the gospel truth – Whether any investigation to explore any other angle was pursued, a stoic silence of State -- None of the ingredients required in law to make out a case u/s 306 IPC to be even remotely mentioned in the charge-sheet or are being borne out from the material on record – Held, charge-sheet filed by the police and the cryptic order of cognizance, the proceedings cannot be allowed to be carried on against the appellants -- Proceedings quashed – SIT constituted for re-investigation.

(Para 15-24)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366 – Kidnapping -- Age of prosecutrix -- There are two contradictory opinions given by two medical experts – Doctor/ PW-3 states that according to the X-ray reports, the age of the prosecutrix was around 14 years, however, Chief Medical Officer/ DW-2 opined that the age of the prosecutrix was around 18 years -- In view of the two conflicting medical opinions, we are of the opinion that the benefit ought to have been given to the appellant-accused.

(Para 14, 15)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366 – Kidnapping – Acquittal -- From the evidence of the prosecutrix, it is clear that she had voluntarily gone along with the appellant, travelled to various places and also resided as husband and wife at Dehradun – Held, High Court was not justified in upholding the conviction for the offences punishable u/s 363 and 366 of the IPC – Appeal allowed, appellant acquitted.

(Para 18-22)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 448, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal intimidation – House trespass – Quashing of FIR -- Allegations in the FIR are totally absurd -- When complainant has not filed any suit, there is no question of appellants threatening him of dire consequences if he does not withdraw the suit – Complainant and his relatives are in the habit of filing false and malicious cases against the appellants only on account of long-standing civil dispute pending between them – Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants would be nothing else but an abuse of the process of law – Chargesheet and summoning order quashed and set aside.

(Para 16, 19, 24, 25)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148(1) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374, 389 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Appeal – Suspension of sentence -- Deposit of 20% compensation – Requirement of -- Petitioners/ convicts directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by trial Court by the Appellate Court -- No reason given by the Court while issuing directions -- Condition of depositing of 20% of compensation amount awarded by the trial Court imposed for the purpose of suspension of sentence, set aside -- Appellate Court directed to re-consider the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and then to pass appropriate order in accordance with the law laid down in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (SC) 2024(2) L.A.R. 323 = (2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18509 and till then not to take any coercive action against the petitioners.

(Para 7, 8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 148(1) -- Deposit of 20% compensation – Requirement of -- According to Section 148 NI Act, the requirement to deposit a minimum 20% of the fine or compensation during an appeal is not mandatory, instead, it is discretionary power vested with the appellate Court meaning the said Court can choose to waive the said deposit in certain exceptional circumstances depending on the facts of the case.

(Para 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375(2), Exception 2, 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape with wife – Quashing of FIR -- As per Exception 2 u/s 375 of IPC, sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife cannot be termed as rape and, hence, a charge under Section 376 of IPC cannot be sustained against the appellant -- The conduct of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 in failing to enter appearance despite sufficient notice is reflective of the fact that it is a dead case where no purpose shall be served in continuing the criminal proceedings alleging charges of rape against the appellant -- No prima facie case constituting any offence is made out against the appellant and—FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed – Appeal allowed.

(Para 17)