Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 39, 192, 207, 177, 179, 187, 196 -- Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 2001, Section 22, 28 (i) – Cognizance against Post / Non-juridical person – Permissibility of -- Summons in a criminal case to face trial cannot be issued against positions or post as a post is not juridical person – Ld. CJM issued summons against DGM Sail, M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines more so when such post undisputedly does not even exist -- Taking cognizance by not naming any person who was responsible for the alleged criminal act is certainly not sustainable in law – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 107, 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Abetment to suicide – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Uttering words “go and hang yourself” – Whether abetment – No -- Sole accused, husband of the lady with whom the deceased had certain relationship and had blunt out his anger and had uttered words ‘go and hang yourself’ cannot mean that it would become the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC for it to become an offence u/s 306 of the IPC – Reason for the deceased to commit suicide may be myriad, one of which could be the factum of him having illicit relationship with the wife of the petitioner, despite being the Father and Priest of a Church -- Charge sheet filed -- Such cases should be nipped in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. – Proceedings pending before the Principal District & Sessions Judge quashed.

(Para 14-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 406, 384, 420, 120(B) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Matrimonial dispute  -- Quashing of FIR – Misue of State machinery – One FIR at Hisar – Other at Udaipur – Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 misusing their official position by lodging complaints one after the other – Further, their conduct of neither appearing before the Trial Court at Hisar nor withdrawing their complaint at Hisar, would show that their only intention was to harass the appellant by first making him face a trial at Hisar and then again at Udaipur – Argument that no offence was committed in Hisar but only at Udaipur was also not correct – Court deprecated this practice of state machinery being misused for ulterior motives, imposed cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the respondent No.2 – FIR at Udaipur quashed.

(Para 8-12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 376, 3(2)(V) – Murder – Rape – Acquittal -- Not a case of direct evidence -- Not a case of circumstantial evidence -- PW-1 and PW-2, star prosecution witnesses are parents of the deceased -- PW-2 was not present in the village when the incident occurred and PW-1/ mother has not seen the accused/ appellant committing the offence, she claims to have learnt of the complicity of accused/ appellant but no person has been identified from whom information has been received – No recovery from the accused/ appellant -- Not the case that dead body has been recovered on the pointing out of the accused/ appellant – Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside.

(Para 21-28)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21 -- NDPS Case – Acquittal – Independent witness – Exclusive possession -- No evidence to establish that the alleged place of recovery i.e. room where a motor was situated, was under exclusive possession, usage, or ownership of the appellant – No explanation from police officials regarding the absence of independent witnesses during the operation -- No efforts were made to establish a direct connection between the appellant and the recovered contraband material – Reasonable doubt created about the genuineness of the recovery – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 9-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21, 29, 31 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 30 -- NDPS case – Acquittal – Leave to appeal – Confession/ Disclosure of co-accused -- Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the money allegedly recovered from the possession of respondent-accused i.e. Rs.7,500/- had been derived from the sale of narcotics -- Confession made by one accused cannot serve as a substantive piece of evidence against a co-accused -- Its admissibility is limited only for corroborative purposes -- Acquittal order, upheld.

(Para 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 120-B – Constitution of India, Article 142 – Cheque bounce complaint / FIR -- Compounding of offence – No consent of complainant – Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Initially, both sides agreed to compound at the appellate stage but the appellant could not pay the amount within the time – Now appellant has paid the entire amount with interest – Appellant in jail for more than 1 year before being released on bail – Now no purpose to keep the proceedings pending – Transaction between the parties was purely civil in nature which does not attract criminal law -- Even though complainant is unwilling to compound, proceedings must come to an end – While exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, criminal proceedings in FIR and criminal appeals against conviction u/s 138 of the NI Act quashed and sentence awarded by the trial court set aside.

(Para 13-15)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cheque bonce case – Quashing of complaint -- Though the prayer for quashing was made only as regards first and second respondents, by the impugned judgment, the complaint has been quashed in its entirety – Held, there was no reason for the High Court to quash the complaint in its entirety -- Impugned order modified.

 (Para 3-5)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157 – Excise matter – Cognizable offence -- Search and seizure without FIR -- There are two kinds of FIRs namely, the FIR can be registered by the informant which was duly signed by him -- Secondly, the FIR can be registered by the police officer himself on any information received by him -- In both the cases, the information should be reduced into writing and thereafter, the investigation must be carried out -- Ex.P1 being a panchanama, it cannot be termed as a complaint -- FIR cannot be registered on the basis of panchanama.

(Para 15, 16)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 157 – Karnataka Excise Act, 1965 (21 of 1966), Section 32, 34, 38-A -- Excise matter – Cognizance by court -- Search and seizure without FIR – FIR based on panchnama – Void abinitio – Acquittal – Respondent registered the FIR on the basis of panchanama which is erroneous and not proper – Trial Court ought not to have acted upon such FIR and cognizance should not have been taken on the strength of the said FIR – When the registration of FIR itself is void abinitio, the subsequent proceedings including the judgments are liable to be set aside – Revision allowed, judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside – Petitioners acquitted.

(Para 3, 15, 16)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce complaint – Presumption as to liability – Rebuttal – Standard of proof -- Once execution of the cheque is proved/ admitted, the presumptions u/s 118(a) and 139 of the said Act would arise that it is supported by a consideration -- Such presumptions are rebuttable in nature and the accused can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence, and if the accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the complainant who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would dis-entitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument -- Standard of proof so as to prove defence on the part of an accused is 'preponderance of probabilities' and inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.

(Para 6, 7)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Void cheque – Alteration in cheque -- Amount written in cheque corrected in figures or in number without the knowledge and consent of maker of the cheque amounts to material alteration and also amounts cancellation -- The figure “2" was specifically inserted in cheque specifically without the knowledge of the drawer is a material alteration which makes the documents void -- Accused is not liable for any type of legal recoverable debt -- Nothing is on file to prove any type of transaction or debt to held the accused liable – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 8-10)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Receipt issued on the letter pad of the shop of accused is also not proved the liability of the accused in any manner as no witness regarding the receipt is on the letter pad and without any witness the document did not prove any type of liability towards the accused.

(Para 9)

Public Gambling Act, 1867 (3 of 1867), Section 13(A) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (43 of 1978), Section 4, 5 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR -- Dara Satta/ Gambling -- S.I. was not authorised to conduct the raid -- Petitioners being the authorised dealer/ a member of National Commodity and Derivatives Exchange Limited, so no offence u/s 4 & 5 of 1978, Act made out -- Ingredients u/s 420 IPC are completely missing – FIR, summoning order and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Suicide note – In suicide note general allegation against the appellant and her family members (her father, mother and brother) that they are responsible for his suicide -- It is also stated therein that the local MLA had also given him a threat, and therefore, he committed suicide due to mental torture -- Taking the suicide note as it is, the same does not help the prosecution at all, especially when there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was in touch with the deceased on the telephone or in any other manner -- Chargesheet quashed qua the appellant.

(Para 9, 12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Abetment of suicide – Quashing of charge-sheet -- No act is attributed to the appellant proximate to the time of the suicide which was of such a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to take the drastic step of committing suicide -- Therefore, no offence is made out against the appellant – Chargesheet quashed qua the appellant.

(Para 11, 12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Acquittal -- Leave to appeal -- Ordinarily, the order of acquittal will not be interfered with, merely because another view is possible -- Upon passing the order of acquittal, presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets reinforced and strengthened.

(Para 10)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 15, 18 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 342, 302, 201 – Acquittal -- POCSO – Murder -- Child in conflict with law/ CCIL – Preliminary assessment – Mandate of – Investigating Officer and Trial Court was aware of the fact that Accused/ appellant was juvenile -- In absence of a preliminary assessment being conducted by the Board under Section 15, and without an order being passed by the Board under Section 15(1) read with Section 18(3), it was impermissible for the trial Court to have accepted the charge sheet and to have proceeded with the trial of the accused – Held, procedure adopted by the Sessions Court in conducting the trial of the accused appellant is de hors the mandatory requirements of JJ Act -- Entire proceedings stand vitiated – Such an exercise at this stage would be sheer futility because now the appellant is nearly 23 years of age – Impugned judgment quashed and set aside -- Appellant ordered to be released forthwith.

(Para 25, 26, 38-51)

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 21, 22 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Mining offence – Quashing of FIR -- Registration of the FIR is bad in the eyes of law, as cognizance of an offence under the MMDR Act can only be taken upon a criminal complaint -- MMDR Act is a special statute provisions regarding procedure must be adopted, general provisions of the IPC or the Cr.P.C. will not be attracted -- FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 6-12)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheating -- Forgery – Quashing of FIR -- Information under RTI Act – Signature on application alleged to be forged -- No provision under the RTI Act or Rules made thereunder to file a complaint against an applicant, who sought any information under the said Act -- No loss of property or valuable security has been caused to the complainant, who is an official working under the DITS -- He had no locus standi to lodge prosecution against the petitioner(s) -- FIR ought to have been filed by SK, whose signatures are alleged to have been forged -- FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 3, 13, 14)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 415, 463, 464 -- Cheating – Forgery – Essential ingredients for commission of offence of cheating are deception and inducement to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property – There must be an intention to induce a person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and the act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property – Further, to attract ingredients of forgery, there must be making of a false document or false electronic record with an intention to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person.

(Para 10)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 467, 468, 471 -- Forgery -- Making of the false document is sine qua non for launching prosecution u/s 467, 468, 471 IPC.

(Para 11)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 467, 468, 471 -- Forgery -- Ingredients of forgery are attracted; if a person (i) made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; (ii) materially altered or tampered a document; (iii) procured a document by deception from a person, who is not in control of his senses.

(Para 11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 (3 of 1938), Section 3 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 (4) -- Cheque bounce complaint – Acquittal – Money Lender’s license – Respondent/ accused is under no legally enforceable debt as the complainant-company has been advancing loans illegally -- It is imperative to possess a money lending licence as per the Money Lender’s Act -- Section 3 of the said Act provides that the suit or application for recovery of the loan shall be dismissed if the person claiming recovery does not hold a valid licence under the Act -- Thus, the debt becomes an unenforceable debt – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 3-7)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of complaint – Basic ingredients – Requirement of -- Submission that complaint does not contain date of presentation of cheque before the bank, the date of return of the cheque as unpaid from the bank, the date of issuing mandatory notice within 30 days and the date of service of such notice on the drawee – Held, complaint cannot proceed u/s 138 of the N.I. Act without the basic ingredients being mentioned therein – Proceedings of Complaint case quashed.

(Para 2, 5, 6)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 18, 29, 67 – NDPS Case – Acquittal -- Confessional statement – Reliance upon -- Witnesses turned hostile, appellant was convicted and sentenced by taking recourse to Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Impugned order set aside, appellant acquitted of all the charges. Balwinder Singh (Binda)’s case (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1213 relied.

(Para 1-3)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323 -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 4 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 – Appeal against acquittal – Duty of Appellate Court -- Limitation -- Trial Court acquitted the appellants -- Sessions Court convicted the appellants, however, granted a relief of probation -- High Court has not gone into the question, whether the Sessions Court was aware of the limitations of the appeal against acquittal -- 3 prosecution witnesses and 7 defence witnesses have been examined, there is not even a reference to the depositions of the said witnesses in the impugned judgment -- Impugned order set aside, matter  remanded for fresh consideration by the High Court.

(Para 3-5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174A – Settlement in cheque bounce complaint – Proclaimed person -- Quashing of FIR u/s 174A IPC -- Proceedings under the N.I. Act culminated in a settlement with the withdrawal of the complaint – F.I.R. u/s 174-A of IPC along with all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 11-13)

Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (104 of 1956), Section 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Objectionable position at Spa Centre – Quashing of FIR – For the past 4½ years, none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined and the petitioner is facing the agony of prolonged trial – Owner as well as the Manager of the Spa against whom specific allegation was levelled, have been exonerated by the Investigating Agency – Petitioner at best was found in the objectionable position with one of the girls working in the said spa – No offence u/s 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the 1956 Act read with section 120-B IPC made out – FIR and all the subsequent proceedings quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 5-7)

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Legally enforceable liability -- Loan -- Money lending licence – Requirement of -- Complainant was involved in money-lending business without possessing any valid license -- Respondent/ accused used to borrow money from him -- Claim of the applicant/ complainant against the respondent is an unenforceable claim and thus, cannot be considered a legally enforceable liability u/s 138 of the NI Act.

(Para 4)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Acquittal by Trial court – Leave to appeal -- 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.

(Para 5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 – Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of – Resignation of Director – Effect of -- Whether a appellant/ Director who has resigned from such position and which fact stands recorded in the books as per the relevant rules and statutory provisions, can be held liable for certain negotiable instruments, failing realization – Complainant not placed any materials on record indicating complicity of the appellants in the alleged crime -- Appellants had no role in the issuance of the instrument -- After the appellants have severed their ties with the Respondent-Company and, therefore, can in no way be responsible for the conduct of business at the relevant time – All criminal proceedings pertaining to the appellants arising out of the complaints filed by the respondent quashed.

(Para 2-11)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 21(a), 22 -- NDPS case – Recovery of unbranded loose capsules -- Out of 1130 capsules, two samples of 10 capsules each were separated and therefrom only one sample was sent to FSL -- As per report of FSL, 648 mg of “Dextropropoxyphene Napsylate”, was found in each capsule -- Entire recovery could not have been presumed to have contained the salt of “Dextropropoxyphene Napsylate” -- Ld. Special judge convicted the respondent/ accused for sentence already undergone of 06 months & 02 days besides imposition of fine of Rs.3000/- and in case of default, RI for 15 days -- No illegality or perversity – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 7-9)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 – Acquittal by trial court – Scope of appeal -- Scope of intervention in a criminal appeal -- It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, unless proven guilty -- Presumption continues at all stages of the trial and finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in acquittal -- Presumption of innocence gets concretized when the case ends in acquittal -- Higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal.

(Para 24)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 – Acquittal by trial court – Scope of appeal -- There is no inhibition on the High Court to re-appreciate or re-visit the evidence on record -- However, the power of the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal.

-- The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the Trial Court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence

-- The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the Trial Court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact

-- If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a fairly possible view.

A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion -- What is required is an illegality or perversity -- When two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action -- Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the Trial Court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence.

(Para 25, 26)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 –  Acquittal by trial court – Scope of appeal -- Criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty -- All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice -- The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.

(Para 36)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 304 Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Death of the deceased occurred on account of his chance intervention in the fight between the accused and PW-3 – No intention on the part of the accused to cause the offence as against the deceased -- Appellant must be given the benefit of conversion of the offence from 302 to 304 Part II – Appellant already in custody for over 14 years excluding the period of remission  -- Maximum punishment is only 10 years or with fine or with both -- Appellant ordered to be released.

(Para 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 304 Part II – Murder -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Offence and the death of the deceased occurred on account of his chance intervention in the fight between the accused and PW-3 – Court do not think that there was any intention on the part of the accused to cause the offence as against the deceased -- Appellant must be given the benefit of conversion of the offence from 302 to 304 Part II – Since, appellant has already undergone 14 years without remission, he must also be given the benefit of immediate release – Appeal allowed.

(Para 6-10)

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (14 of 1981), Section 33A, 49  -- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974), Section 33A, 43 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 188 --  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 2(d), 4(2), 482 -- Quashing of FIR -- Offence for Water and Air pollution and Section 188 of IPC – Criminal complaint – Section 33A of The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the provisions of Indian Penal Code are expressly excluded -- Statutory scheme under Act, 1974 and Act, 1981 provides that the prosecution under them can only be launched by way of a complaint case an FIR cannot be registered under the provisions of the same – Held, impugned FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are void ab initio and are liable to be quashed -- FIR quashed.

(Para 6-10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376AB -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3/4, 5(d)/6, 42 -- Rape of minor girl aged 7 years – Sentence of punishment -- Appellant was aged 40 year at the time of offence -- High Court commuted Capital sentence to life sentence -- Court are also to take into account the present age of the petitioner and the fact that he has already undergone the incarceration – Life sentence modified to a fixed term of sentence of 30 years with fine of Rs.1 lac.

(Para 7, 16, 17)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 376 AB – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3/4, 5(d)/6, 42 -- Punishment for rape on woman under twelve years of age – Sentence for 30 years -- Fine for medical expenses -- When a sentence of imprisonment for a term not less than 20 years which may extend upto life imprisonment is imposed, the convict is also liable to suffer a sentence of fine which shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim which quantified as Rupees One Lakh and the same shall be paid to the victim with respect to the conviction u/s 363, IPC -- No separate sentence for the aforesaid offence under POCSO Act is to be imposed on the petitioner-convict.

(Para 11, 16, 17, 20)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of cheque bounce complaint – Drawer of cheque – Requirement of -- Proceeding in the complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act was quashed vis-à-vis respondent No. 2 on the ground that he was not the drawer of the cheque -- Above view of the High Court cannot be faulted qua the second respondent – Special Leave Petitions dismissed.

(Para 3, 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Quashing of conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Compounding of offence – Non-consent of complainant – Cheque amounting Rs.1,50,000/-, appellant deposited Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a., further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited with the Trial Court as suggested by Court --  Respondent/ complainant ought to have come forward to compound the offence – Held, Court not appreciated the stand taken by the respondent, especially when the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- more than what was ordered to be paid by the Trial Court -- Conviction of the appellant quashed and set aside.

(Para 3-7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 325, 506 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Summoning to husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law – Quashing of :

-- Complainant alleged that she was beaten up and a fracture was caused in her hand, no medical documents were produced by her either before the Magistrate or with the counter affidavit filed in this Court to support this contention.

-- Stated in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. that she was treated with great affection and respect by the grandfather of the applicant no.1 and her ill treatment and harassment started after his death, in the statement recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C., the opposite party no.2/complainant stated that she was harassed for demanding dowry from the day following the date of her marriage.

-- At the same time, in the counter affidavit filed before this court, she stated that after the marriage, she had gone with her husband for honeymoon to Dubai and both of them had a very pleasant trip.

-- Complaint application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C filed after receipt of summon of the suit and after the suit filed under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act and after the Family Court had granted last opportunity to the opposite party no.2 to file her written statement and even after the date of that last opportunity had expired.

The learned Magistrate erred in summoning the applicants to face the trial without there being any specific allegation of commission of any act by the applicant nos. 2 and 3 which may amount to an offence -- Moreover, there is absolutely no material to support the allegations against the applicant no. 1 – Summoning order/ complaint quashed.

(Para 19-33

B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 9 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) -- Restitution of conjugal rights – Criminal proceedings – Opposite party no.2/ complainant/ wife filed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. merely to put pressure on the applicants and other members of their family for restitution of her matrimonial relationship with the applicant no.1/ husband -- However, she had filed a suit u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act with the same objective, which has been dismissed by the Family Court -- Criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to be misused for ulterior objective to put undue pressure on the husband, his family members and relatives for restitution of conjugal rights.

(Para 30)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 – Cheating – Protracted trial – Sentence reduced to already undergone -- Criminal complaint filed in the year 1998, the petitioner is facing agony of a protracted trial, which has lasted for approximately 25 years -- Out of the total sentence of 3 years u/s 420 IPC, the petitioner has undergone actual sentence of 6 months and 7 days -- In the interest of justice sentence reduced to the period already undergone by petitioner -- Fine increased to Rs.10,000/- in default of fine rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(Para 13, 14)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 504, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190, 200, 482 -- Criminal  breach of trust – Criminal intimidation – Quashing of complaint/ summoning order -- Commercial disputes over variation of rate cannot per se give rise to an offence u/s 405 of the 1860 Code without presence of any aggravating factor leading to the substantiation of its ingredients -- Dispute pertains to the revision of rate per unit in an ongoing commercial transaction -- A commercial dispute, which ought to have been resolved through the forum of Civil Court has been given criminal colour by lifting from the penal code certain words or phrases and implanting them in a criminal complaint – There is only reproduction of part of the statutory provision giving rise to the offence of criminal intimidation, this would constitute a mere bald allegation -- Criminal complaint and summoning order quashed.

(Para 19-21)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190, 200 -- At the stage of issuing summons a magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie case for taking cognizance, the duty of the magistrate is also to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding.

(Para 18)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 375, 376 – Rape – False promise to marry -- If the consent of the victim is based on misconception, such consent is immaterial as it is not a voluntary consent -- If it is established that from the inception, the consent by the victim is a result of a false promise to marry, there will be no consent, and in such a case, the offence of rape will be made out.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376(2), 377, 504, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape – False promise to marry – Quashing of charge-sheet -- Physical relationship started in 2012, though prosecutrix claimed that it was a forced relationship, she did not make any grievance about it till February 2018 -- In February 2013 and in December 2017, the prosecutrix was pregnant -- It is not the case of the prosecutrix that from February 2013 to December 2017, the appellant forced the second respondent to maintain the physical relationship -- In July 2017, there was an engagement ceremony between the appellant and the prosecutrix – Taking the prosecution case as correct, it is not possible to accept that the prosecutrix maintained a physical relationship only because the appellant had given a promise of marriage – Charge-sheet and further proceedings quashed.

(Para 9-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 500 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202 -- Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) – Criminal defamation – News article – Freedom of speech -- News article published bearing a title “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj” -- News article in question was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India – All proceedings in pursuance of the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant u/s 500 of the IPC quashed.

(Para 2, 8-11)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(xi) -- Offence under SC/ST Act – Intention -- Offence of outraging the modesty should be committed with the intention that the victim belonged to the Scheduled Caste category.

(Para 8)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(xi) -- Offence under SC/ST Act – Prosecutrix/ complainant was engaged for doing household jobs in the house of the accused appellant who tried to outrage her modesty while the prosecutrix/ complainant was doing the household chores -- Offending act was not committed by the accused with the intention that he was doing so upon a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste – Appellant acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.

(Para 9-11)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(X) – Abuse to SC/ST community -- It is settled position of law that insulting or intimidating a person belonging to scheduled castes/ scheduled tribes will not by itself amount to an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to SC/ST community.

(Para 20)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(X) -- Abuse to SC/ST -- Appeal against conviction -- Prosecution has not produced or proved scheduled caste certificate of complainant during the trial -- Evident from testimony of PW-1/ Complainant, that the appellant did not hurl any abuses to the complainant in the name of his caste – PW-2 and PW-3 stated that the appellant hurled abuses to the complainant by addressing him as “kuttia chuharia”, in their presence however, they nowhere stated that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste – PW-3 have dispute with appellant with regard to shamlat land and the panchayat was convened -- PW-2 stated that he also accompanied the complainant to police station to lodge complaint regarding incident in question and police recorded his statement but no such statement of PW-1 recorded by the police is available on the record -- No member of the gram panchayat was examined by the complainant/prosecution in order to prove the case -- Occurrence of 20.07.2000 and the complaint with regard to said incident was lodged by the complainant in the Court of Sub Divisional, Judicial Magistrate on 03.08.2000 -- In the absence of any independent corroboration, the benefit of aforesaid delay in lodging of the complaint goes in favour of the appellant – Appeal allowed, appellant acquitted.

(Para 21-25)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Acquittal in cheque bounce complaint – Demand notice – Trial court acquitted the accused -- Notice of demand given on behalf of the appellant/ complainant was not by the authorised person and, therefore, the necessary ingredients of Section 138 of the said act were not proved -- Basic ingredients that the cheque should have been drawn by the accused for discharge of any debt or liability, was also not proved by the appellant/ complainant -- High Court also, considering the said findings, dismissed the appeal – No illegality or infirmity or perversity – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 5-9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 – Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing/ deletion of name of Director -- Complaint shows that the 2nd and the 5th accused had signed the cheque -- 2nd accused was one of the Directors and fifth accused was the authorized signatory of the company -- No allegation in the complaint that petitioner signed the cheque or had anything to do with the issuance of the cheque -- Petitioner is roped in only because she is a Director in the company on whose behalf, the cheque was issued -- Held, arraying of the petitioner as the 4th accused was un-justified -- Accordingly, her deletion from the proceedings ordered.

(Para 2-7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Murder – Acquittal -- Dying declaration -- There is no specific material piece of evidence to establish that the deceased was alive or in a position to speak when his brother & mother reached the spot -- Dying declaration cannot be ex facie accepted to be correct unless it stands corroborated by any other cogent evidence -- No material to corroborate the said dying declaration -- Conviction and sentence of the appellants set aside by granting the benefit of doubt – Appellants acquitted.

(Para 16-18)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Appeal against conviction – Acquittal -- Where the evidence on record indicates the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view, different from the one expressed by the courts below can be taken, the appellate court should not shy away in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.

(Para 17)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Murder – Acquittal -- Circumstantial evidence -- Deceased has suffered an incise wound which according to the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, is caused by a sharp-edged weapon -- Prosecution has not recovered any sharp-edged weapon – FSL report states that the “pant” sent to them for examination was one dirty blue “terikot pant”, however, as per the recovery memo a “jeans pant” was recovered from the Appellant -- Nothing of these recoveries took place in the presence of an independent witness, the IO has admitted that he did not try to join any private person before carrying out the recoveries --  Evidence adduced gives rise to doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies -- Prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 32)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Settlement between parties – Quashing of proceedings – No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, maybe for the reason that there has been a settlement -- Matter is pending since 2018 – Held, once the settlement has been arrived at and the complainant has signed the deed accepting a particular amount in full and final settlement of the default amount and the fine amount awarded by the Trial Court, the proceedings u/s 138 of the NI Act need to be quashed -- Appeal allowed and the proceedings u/s 138 of the NI Act, along with impugned orders passed, stand quashed.

(Para 1-5)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Appeal dismissed   -- Matter was thereafter settled between the parties -- High Court rejected the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. -- Held, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and since the original complainant himself is not interested in prosecuting the proceedings, it is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to give an end to the litigation between the parties -- Order of sentence and conviction set aside.

(Para 3-8)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985),  Section 20 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- NDPS Case – Appeal against acquittal – Discrepancies in sample -- Investigating Officer had taken a homogeneous sample of 100 grams out of the entire bulk -- Two separate parcels of the sample and remaining bulk were prepared and sealed -- Parcel containing of 100 grams Charas (homogeneous sample) was never sent to SFSL, report Ext. PX verifies the fact that only one parcel containing 7.900 Kgs. of Charas was received in the Laboratory – Three seal impressions were broken and the fourth though partially broken was also not legible -- Doubts created in the prosecution story by the gaps found therein -- In appeal against acquittal the appellate court cannot substitute its view with the view taken by learned trial court unless such view is illegal and perverse -- No ground to interfere with the impugned judgment – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 16-25)

Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (VI of 1978), Section 8 – Constitution of India, Article 22(5) – Preventive detention – Dossier of detention – Non-supply of – Representation – Right of – Detenue has not been provided the Dossier and precluded from making an effective representation -- Failure on the part of detaining authority to supply the material to the detenu renders the detention order illegal and unsustainable -- Non-consideration of the representation amounts to non-compliance of Article 22(5) of the Constitution -- Petition allowed, impugned detention order quashed -- Respondents directed to release the detenu, if he is not required in any other case.

(Para 5-7)

Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, Section 306, 498A – Abetment of suicide – Cruelty against wife – Appeal against acquittal -- SHO without conducting proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C registered the FIR – Statement of the mother of the deceased was recorded u/s 164-A Cr.P.C. after 55 days of the occurrence, whereas the statements of other witnesses were recorded after more than 10 days of the occurrence -- From the evidence, it is clear that some witnesses have made improvements in their statements from their statements recorded during the course of investigation -- Some witnesses have categorically stated that the accused never demanded any dowry in their presence -- Benefit is required to be given to the accused/respondents – In the acquittal appeal, simply because the other view is also possible on the same set of evidence, the judgment of acquittal cannot be reversed -- Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 17-23)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 53A(2) – NDPS Case – Acquittal – Seal used in another FIR -- Whereas case seal ‘DJ’ was not in possession of police but was stated to have been handed over to independent witness PW-4  -- Ld. Special Judge has rightly concluded that seal impression ‘DJ’ never changed hands and it had not been handed over to witness after its use -- Once that be so, the entire case of the prosecution becomes suspect and obviously the respondent has to be given the benefit of doubt as has been given by the learned Special Judge – Acquittal order upheld.

(Para 24, 31-34)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 406 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, (28 of 1961), Section 3, 5 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 244, 245 – Discharge of accused -- Omnibus and general allegations against married sisters-in-law residing at distant places married prior to the marriage in question -- Complainant has stated in her evidence that her sisters-in-law are greedy people and used to visit her matrimonial home and gave her beating, and all the accused persons got her pregnancy aborted, but there is no medical evidence in support of this version -- Court below, while dismissing the discharge application has failed to notice the role of the revisionists and the probability of their false implication -- They are not supposed to be beneficiary of any demand of dowry made by co-accused persons – Revision partly allowed, ld. Magistrate directed to consider the prayer for discharge made by present revisionists a fresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam’s case AIR 2022 SC 820 relied.

(Para 11-21)