Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, Rule 7 – Case under SC-ST Act -- Investigation by Sub Inspector instead of DSP -- Benefit of doubt – Conviction by Trial Court -- Acquittal in appeal -- Several infirmities and lacunae in the prosecution story :

-- Complainant, who got her statement recorded as PW2 and PW7 another eye-witness did not support the prosecution story at all and declared hostile.

-- Prosecution unable to establish on record that on which date, the incident had taken place – When prosecution is not sure of the date of incident, then the very happening of the incident becomes doubtful.

-- Investigating Officer is not to be below the rank of DSP -- Thus rule having been violated clearly caused prejudice to the accused making the credibility of the prosecution story doubtful.

-- Plausible motive for lodging of the FIR in view of the civil litigation pending between the accused and village Gram Panchayat and lodging of FIR could be a device to put pressure upon the accused in civil litigation and make them leave the village since as per case of the accused, theirs is the only Saini family in the village, which is otherwise inhabited by members of the HARIJAN community.

A reasonable doubt arises about truthfulness of the prosecution story and the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused conclusively and affirmatively – Benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused, which was wrongly denied to them by the trial Court – Impugned judgment and order of sentence cannot stand judicial scrutiny and are not sustainable, same are set aside.

(Para 1, 13-15)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal breach of trust -- Goods were entrusted with the company, the Managing Director of the said company cannot be prosecuted without the company as an accused -- In the absence of any specific overt act on the part of the petitioner, no offence u/s 406 of IPC can be made out against the petitioner/ Managing Director – Proceedings quashed.

(Para 9)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Abetment of suicide -- An indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide would constitute the offence of abetment of suicide u/s 306 of the IPC.

(Para 16)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Abetment of suicide – Compromise quashing of FIR – Financial settlement -- FIR u/s 306 of the IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else -- High Court quashed the proceedings on the sole ground that the disputes between the accused and the informant had been compromised -- Impugned orders of the High Court set aside.

(Para 50)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings -- In exercise of power u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegation in the complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence.

(Para 49)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 24, 27 -- Murder – Acquittal – Extra-judicial confession – Recovery from accused -- PW-7 turned hostile, trial court disbelief the alleged recovery of the incriminating material allegedly recovered at the instance of the respondent-accused – Court only leaves with the alleged extra-judicial confession – High Court held that extrajudicial confession was a weak piece of evidence and unless there was some corroboration, the conviction solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession could not be sustained – Held, view taken by the High Court cannot be said to be either impossible or perverse meriting interference -- Appeal dismissed.

(Para 9-11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Rape – Consensual relationship – Quashing of FIR -- Parties chose to have physical relationship without marriage for a considerable period of time -- For some reason, the parties fell apart -- It can happen both before or after marriage -- Thereafter also three years passed when respondent No.2 decided to register a FIR -- Facts are so glaring as set out aforesaid that the court have no hesitation in quashing the FIR and bringing the proceedings to a close.

(Para 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 141 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Constitution of India, Article 136 – Cheque bounce case – Security deposit cheque – Quashing of Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act – High Court quashed the complaint -- Dispute between the parties regarding the quality of the material supplied – Respondent/ accused made a complaint in writing of the defective material and then stopped the payment – Respondent has already filed a Civil Suit for damages – Held, the issues between the parties can be effectively resolved through Civil Suit only – Petitioner shall be at liberty either to file counter claim or a separate suit in accordance with law – Observations made by the High Court in its impugned order shall have no bearing on the outcome of the Civil Suit.

(Para 1-7)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 34, 392 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 – Robbery -- Murder -- Loot of Rs.5 lacs – Conviction based upon recovery – Legality of --  Prosecution is required to establish and prove that the amount which is recovered from the accused is the very amount which the complainant/the person from whom the amount is looted -- When the prosecution has failed to prove that the complainant and the deceased were carrying Rs.5 lakhs cash in the dicky of the scooter and it was the very looted amount which was recovered from the accused, the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of recovery of some cash.

(Para 2, 6.1)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 34, 392 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Robbery -- Murder -- Test Identification parade in Court room -- Prior thereto no TIP conducted by the Investigating Agency – When no TIP was conducted the first version of the complainant reflected in the FIR would play an important role -- Nothing has been mentioned in his first statement that he had seen the accused earlier and that he will be able to identify the accused -- In the deposition before the Court, complainant tried to improve the case by deposing that he had seen the accused in the city on one or two occasions -- The aforesaid was not disclosed in the FIR -- Even in the cross-examination as admitted by PW1 he did not disclose any description of the accused -- PW1 has specifically and categorically admitted in the cross-examination that it is incorrect that the accused were known earlier -- It would not be safe and/or prudent to convict the accused solely on the basis of their identification for the first time in the Court -- Conviction u/s 302 read with Section 34 and Section 392 IPC quashed and set aside -- Accused acquitted from the charges.

(Para 6, 6.2-6.7, 8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Compromise post-conviction -- Nature of dispute is predominantly private -- Statement made in the joint petition preferred by the informant and the accused as well as the affidavit filed discloses that the compromised has been entered into voluntarily -- Nature of the offences is also not heinous – Conviction and sentence set aside and quashed.

(Para 7-9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 -- Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Cheque bounce case – Compromise after conviction -- Compounding of offence -- In conformity with the settlement requisite payment accepted -- It does appear appropriate to accept the terms of settlement between the parties and allow the compounding of offence – Orders passed by the Appellate Court and the Trial Court are set aside.

(Para 7, 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of FIR – Alleged commission of an offence constituted u/s 307 of the IPC, does not prima facie appear to be so grave, and, nor is so heinous – When the settlement has occurred, at the pre-charge stage, thereupon, for preserving amity, and, harmony amongst the concerned, besides when given the occurrence of a compromise at the pre-trial stage, rather the victim-complainant, or/and, the ocular witnesses to the occurrence are not likely to support the charge – Settlement/compromise, as validly entered into, enjoins its being revered – Chances of the petitioner being convicted are remote as well as bleak – In sequel, the ordering for the trial of the accused, would result in harassment and humiliation, being caused to the accused, besides would defeat the ends of justice – Petition allowed, FIR and, also all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 13-19)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Quashing of proceedings -- Partial payment of cheque amount – Effect of -- Cheque when presented for realization was returned for technical reason -- On the very same date, the accused transferred a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the account of the complainant through RTGS – No material placed that the cheque was re-presented towards recovery of balance amount – Ld. Magistrate has committed an error in taking cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Petition allowed, impugned proceedings quashed.

(Para 6, 7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 (2) (n) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Sections 4, 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- POCSO matter – Rape case -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Dispute amicably settled between the parties – In the event, the Court is satisfied that in order to secure the ends of justice, it should interfere under its inherent powers, it ought to do so -- Respondent no.2/ girl already attained the age of majority, has solemnized marriage with the petitioner and the couple is stated to be residing happily with each other and a male child has also been born from the wedlock -- Possibility of conviction also become remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case will cause injustice not only to the petitioner but also to respondent No.2, who is now legally wedded wife of the petitioner -- FIR quashed.

(Para 5-13)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) – More than one dying declaration – Reliance upon -- Each one of them must be examined with care and caution and only after satisfying itself as to which of the dying declarations appears to be free from suspicious circumstances and has been made voluntarily, should it be accepted -- It is not necessary that in every case, a dying declaration ought to be corroborated with material evidence, ocular or otherwise -- It is more a rule of prudence that courts seek validation of the dying declaration from attending facts and circumstances and other evidence brought on record -- For the very same reason, a certificate by the doctor that the declarant was fit to make a statement, is treated as a rule of caution to establish the truthfulness of the statement made by the deceased.

(Para 19)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) – Dying declaration – Infirmity in -- Reliance upon -- If a dying declaration suffers from some infirmity, it cannot be the sole basis for convicting the accused -- In those circumstances, the court must step back and consider whether the cumulative factors in a case make it difficult to rely upon the said dying declaration.

(Para 22)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Acquittal in murder case -- Oral dying declaration – Reliance upon -- PW-2 and PW-12 have deposed that in her oral dying declaration, the deceased had referred to the dowry demands made on her by the appellant and the fact that he had suspected her character, which led to the alleged incident -- Nowhere in their testimonies is there any reference made to the prosecution version that the appellant was having an illicit relation with a widow residing in the neighbourhood, which was the main cause of acrimony between the couple and had resulted in the incident -- Diametrically different version of the reasons that led to the alleged incident casts a shadow on the entire testimony of PW-2 and PW-12, making it unsafe to rely on them and indict the appellant for the charge framed against him – Held, prosecution has failed to discharge the obligation cast on it of leading trustworthy corroborative evidence to back-up the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-12 – Their evidence cannot be treated as stellar enough to hold the appellant guilty for the offence of murdering his wife -- Hence, he is entitled to being granted benefit of doubt -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 37-39)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case -- Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s 174-A of IPC -- Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act withdrawn by complainant as compromised – Case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the proceedings u/s 138 of the Act of 1881 and was subsequently arrested and released on bail -- Order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person would prove to be insignificant inasmuch as the main complaint u/s 138 of the Act itself has been withdrawn -- Petition allowed -- FIR u/s 174-A of the IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed/set aside.

(Para 9-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 365, 452, 366, 506 -- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Section 3(i), 101(3)(a) -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Acquittal of juvenile in rape case – Criminal writ petition against -- Place of occurrence i.e. the shop of the accused is situated in a public place, however, as per the deposition of the victim she was forcibly taken from her home to the shop by forcibly making her to sit on the motorcycle of the accused is also improbable as there was strong possibility of the family members coming to know of the same -- Besides this, the ocular version is not even medically corroborated beyond reasonable doubt -- Once the accused is acquitted there lies double the presumption of innocence in his favour -- Interference can be in a situation when there are perversities in the findings arrived at by the Trial Court -- If there are two views possible then the one favouring the accused should be adopted -- Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and evidence adduced on record on the anvil of the law settled, Court finds no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Juvenile Justice Board in acquitting the accused -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 6-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 285, 307, 323, 506, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Attempt to murder -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Parties decided to live in peace, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue -- FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Inherent power u/s 482 of Cr.P.C – Scope of – Power is not to be invoked as a matter of routine but to prevent the abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice -- This section gives the power to High Court to entertain applications which are not contemplated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the event, it is felt that the ends of justice will require that the Court can invoke the extraordinary powers which are to be exercised with restraint and not lightly -- In the event, the Court is satisfied that in order to secure the ends of justice, it should interfere under its inherent powers, it ought to do so.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Rape case – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Respondent no.2/girl has already attained the age of majority, has solemnized marriage with the petitioner and the couple is stated to be residing happily with each other -- In such circumstances, the possibility of conviction also become remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case will cause injustice not only to the petitioner but also to respondent No.2/girl, who is now legally wedded wife of the petitioner -- As such, it is a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code, so as to secure the ends of justice -- Continuation of the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law -- FIR qua the petitioner quashed.

(Para 8-12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Conviction u/s 138 of NI Act – Reduction of sentence to fine, default sentence intact -- Cheque of Rs.3 Lacs – Conviction by Trial Court for one year with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof the appellant was directed to undergo S.I. for six months -- Out of Rs.5000/-, Rs.2500/- was to be paid to the complainant – High Court reduced the sentence from one year to three months – Considering the fact that the appellant is an old lady of 69 years, the substantive sentence substituted by fine in the sum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the fine already deposited by the appellant; Rs.55,000/- shall be the sentence for the offences committed by the appellant -- Default sentence awarded by the trial court as affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court kept intact.

(Para 3-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Sexual harassment case -- Quashing of FIR – Compromise between parties -- FIR is an outcome of a petty dispute, which has been settled -- Perusal of the allegations levelled in the FIR shows that the ingredients of Section 354-A, IPC are not fulfilled -- As the parties have decided to bury the hatchet, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility and the same deserve to be set aside – Petition allowed.

(Para 9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82, 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A -- Proclaimed person – Quashing of FIR u/s Section 174-A – Compromise in cheque bounce case – Complaint has been dismissed as withdrawn -- Petition allowed, FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 1-5)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379, 411 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Theft – Dishonestly receiving stolen property -- Conviction u/s 379, 411 for three years with fine – Appeal against conviction dismissed – Acquittal after compromise in revision --  Held, occurrence can be categorized as purely personal/ criminal act of private nature -- No injury has been caused -- Compromise is without any coercion or compulsion and has been entered into willingly and voluntarily -- Occurrence took place in the year 2017 and there is nothing on record to show that any untoward incident had taken place after the same -- Petitioner is widowed lady of 51 years of age and the complainant has stated that he has primarily entered into compromise on account of old age of the petitioner and on account of the fact that no loss has been caused to him – Criminal Revision allowed, judgment passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, set aside and the petitioner acquitted of the charges framed against her.

(Para 17, 18)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 374 -- Probation – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint -- Matter pertains to an incident that occurred in the year 2000 and the present appeal has been pending since 2012 – No material on record that the accused-petitioner has any criminal antecedents – Held, the accused-petitioner are entitled to the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 -- Petitioner ordered to be released on probation, u/s 4 of the Act.

(Para 12-14)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320, 401, 482  -- Cheque bounce case – Compromise after conviction – Compounding of offence -- Exemption from 15% of Cheque amount -- Petitioner is stated to be a poor farmer, who had taken the said loan for treatment of his son, who was suffering from cancer and stated to be 67 years of age – Petitioner exempted from paying 15% of the cheque amount -- Application u/s 320 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for compounding of offence allowed -- Judgment and order of sentence set aside.

(Para 17-19)

Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975), Section 3, 7, 10 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 468, 482 – FIR under Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act -- Quashing of FIR – Maximum sentence is three years -- Limitation of three years to take cognizance -- Sale deed was executed on 28.04.2011 -- Communication dated 23.02.2012 was sent by the DTP, Kurukshetra to Superintendent of Police on 28.09.2016 leading to the registration of the FIR on 29.09.2016 -- Respondent no.2 was aware of the alleged offence, if any, on 01.12.2011/13.12.2011 and, therefore, the court could have taken cognizance within three years of that date i.e. 01.12.2014/13.12.2014 -- Report u/s 173 Cr.PC was submitted on 17.08.2017 -- Thus, the court could clearly not have taken cognizance beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr.PC -- Petition allowed and the FIR u/s 10 of Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975 along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.

(Para 12-14)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 -- Compromise after conviction – Compounding of offence -- Cheque amount paid -- No one appeared to oppose the application on behalf of the private respondent, in spite of service of notice -- Since amount of both the dishonoured cheques (each of Rs.1,00,000/-) has been paid and the disputes have been compromised, the offence may be compounded -- Sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner set aside.

(Para 1, 2)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(3) -- Snatching case – Leave to appeal against acquittal -- Complaint was registered against the unknown persons -- Incident was around 9 PM, no description of the accused was mentioned by the complainant -- No details like International Mobile Equipment Identity of the mobile or the number of snatched currency notes, no test identification parade was conducted by the IO -- IO made arrest next day from the bus stand of village and there was no basis to support as to how IO identified accused -- IO in his deposition deposed that arrest was on the identification of the complainant -- IO faulted in his cross-examination when he stated that neither identification memo was prepared nor the arrest memo was got signed from the complainant -- None of the documents bear the signatures of accused – Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to discharge the onus of connecting the accused with the alleged incident – Statement of the IO when read as a whole including his answers in cross-examination itself is not enough to prove the case of the prosecution –  With so many dents created in the story of the prosecution, the view taken by the trial Court is a plausible and based upon sound record -- No case is made out of illegality on facts or law much less perversity -- Leave to file appeal is declined.

(Para 2-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 148, 149, 447, 506, 511 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Quashing of FIR -- Investigation pending -- Inherent powers of High Court – Allegation that petitioners attempted to take forcible possession of the land in question -- Perusal of the FIR shows that the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are present, therefore, it is not a case where the intervention of the Court is warranted for quashing of the FIR -- Investigation in the case is pending, therefore, it is apparent that the petition is pre-mature -- Court not inclined to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage.

(Para 3-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 370, 406, 420 – (Immigration) Emigration Act, 1983 (31 of 1983), Section 24 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Trafficking of person -- Compromise between the parties – Held, compromise is in the welfare and interest of the parties and will enable the parties to live in peace and enjoy their life in a dignified manner -- Also there is no legal impediment in translating their wishes into reality by putting an end to the criminal prosecution initiated on the basis of FIR in question – Petition allowed and FIR and all the subsequent proceedings thereof quashed qua the petitioners.

(Para 7-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 34, 406, 498-A, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Dowry case -- Quashing of FIR -- Continuation of the prosecution would result in sheer abuse of process of law, controversy does not indicate that the same involves heinous or serious offences and furthermore, the matrimonial dispute has been sought to be amicably settled – FIR and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise are ordered to be quashed.

(Para 6-9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 174-A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881) , Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person – FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Compromise in cheque bounce case – Complaint u/s 138 NI Act withdrawn --  Held, since the main complaint stands withdrawn the matter being compromised between the parties, therefore, continuation of the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law – FIR and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereof quashed qua the petitioner subject to payment of cost of Rs.7000/- to the Legal Services Authority.

(Para 5-7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 406, 420 (Section 204 added later on) -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 66-D – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Cheating  case – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Allegation that the petitioner who was the ex-employee of respondent No.2, committed fraud with the said company – Report of JMIC along with statements of the parties received, in which, it is mentioned that the compromise is genuine and there was no undue influence or coercion from any side -- Respondents No.2 appeared in the Court through his counsel and pleaded that he has no objection if the FIR is quashed on the basis of the compromise – Petition allowed, FIR and all the subsequent proceedings thereof quashed qua the petitioner.

(Para 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, 411 --- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Snatching case – Dishonestly receiving stolen property -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Matter amicably settled between the petitioner and respondent/victim, who have decided to bury their dispute and live in peace – No useful purpose would be served in allowing the criminal proceedings to continue -- Petition allowed and FIR u/s 379-B, 411 IPC and proceedings emanating therefrom are ordered to be quashed.

(Para 4, 13, 14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 316, 323, 406, 498-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Causing death of quick unborn child (Section 316 IPC) – Dowry case -- Compromise quashing of FIR --  Keeping in view the nature of offences allegedly committed and the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the continuation of criminal prosecution would be a futile exercise – FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 8-12)

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 174-A -- Cheque bounce case – Proclaimed person -- FIR u/s 174-A IPC – Compromise in complaint u/s 138 NI Act case – Complaint was dismissed as withdrawn – FIR u/s 174-A of IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 2-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Abetment to suicide -- Compromise quashing of F.I.R. -- There can be no compromise with the dead man -- As such the FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.

(Para 1,6,7)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), 406, 420 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Cheating – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Victim/aggrieved person stated before the CJM that there would be no objection if the Court quashes this FIR and consequent proceedings -- Continuing proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose -- FIR and all subsequent proceedings qua the petitioner(s) quashed.

(Para 4-8)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Cheque bounce complaint – Pre-mature complaint -- Leave to appeal -- Trial Court found the complaint pre-mature -- Cheque dishonored and returned with the remark ”Account Closed” -- Notice sent to the accused, who refused to accept notice – Complaint filed on 13^th day of refusal – Complainant-appellant registered the complaint before the statutory period of 15 days -- Leave to appeal dismissed.

(Para 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Acquittal of accused – Accidental death case – Rash and negligent driving -- Offending vehicle on inappropriate side -- Best incriminating evidence withheld by prosecution -- PW-1 and PW-2 assign the relevant incriminatory role to the convict -- Both were also required to candidly speak in their respective testifications, that the convict at driving the offending vehicle, had maneuvered it to the inappropriate side of the road, and, that thereupon, he had breached the standards of due care and caution, and, consequently, committed the charged offences -- Their respective testifications, does not reveal so -- Even the investigating officer as PW-5, despite his making a communication qua his drawing the site plan carried in Ex.PW5/E, rather not in his examination-in-chief, speaking with candor, about the afore factum of the offending vehicle being driven on the inappropriate side of the road, and, nor in the site plan, there are candid underlinings, with respect to the afore -- Benefit of doubt, is to be given to the convict – Impugned verdicts, as, drawn by the both learned Court below, upon the convict, are quashed, and, set aside.

(Para 10-14)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 304A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Acquittal of accused – Accidental death case – Rash and negligent driving -- Offending vehicle on inappropriate side -- Best incriminating evidence withheld by prosecution -- It was incumbent upon the investigating officer, to both in Ex.P-3 (drawing) and upon his stepping into the witness box make, vivid disclosures suggestive of the offending vehicle occupying the inappropriate side of the road -- However, both the afore are not communicated by him in either -- Benefit has to be given to the accused -- Revision allowed, impugned verdicts, as, drawn by the both learned Court below, upon the convict, are quashed, and, set aside.

(Para 11-18)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 279, 337 -- Rash and negligent driving -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Accused and injured compromised the matter -- Continuing with proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose -- High Court invokes the inherent jurisdiction and quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.

(Para 1,2,3,13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 498-A -- Quashing of FIR -- Investigation is pending, challan has not been presented -- Held, petition is premature at this stage -- Petitioner would be at liberty to approach the court after filing of the challan.

(Para 3-5)

A. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378 -- Acquittal by Trial court – Presumption of innocence – Power of Appellate Court -- It is well settled that:-

(A) While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the Trial Court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate Court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the Trial Court deserves to be upturned .

(B) With an order of acquittal by the Trial Court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced.

(C) If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate Court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal.

(Para 7)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 20, 50 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378, 379 -- Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, Section 2A -- NDPS case -- Acquittal by Trial court – Conviction by High court – Non-compliance of requirement of affording an option for personal search – However, no recovery from personal search -- High Court proceeded to consider the evidence on record straightaway without considering the reasons that had weighed with the Trial Court -- It is true that the personal search did not result in recovery of any contraband material but the non-compliance of requirement of affording an option, was one of the reasons which weighed with the Trial Court in disbelieving the case of the prosecution -- Assessment on facts made by the Trial Court was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference by the High Court – Appeal allowed, judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside and order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court restored.

(Para 8-13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 504, 406, 498-A, 506, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Acquittal in dowry matter – Revision against -- No medical evidence on record to prove the allegations of physical assault – Allegation of  physical assault in the presence of two cousins, but neither of them were examined during trial nor cited as prosecution witnesses -- Petitioner/complainant while appearing as PW-1 did not utter a word, much less, by way of a whisper regarding the allegations of physical assaults – A panchayat was convened between the parties with regard to the harassment but none of the members of the said panchayat were either examined during trial nor cited as prosecution witnesses -- Allegations of misappropriation of the dowry could not be proved by any cogent or reliable evidence in the absence of any evidence of entrustment of dowry – Revision against acquittal dismissed.

(Para 1, 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 293, 313, 386 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Murder – Remand for trial in appeal -- Deceased died due to gunshot injury -- Seizure of firearm from appellant – Report of a Ballistic Officer although admissible u/s 293 of the CrPC, but before placing reliance on such a report, the person placing trial has to be given full opportunity to challenge and rebut the report -- Neither the copy of the report was supplied to the applicant nor the contents of the report were brought in evidence – Ld. Sessions Judge also omitted to put any question to the appellant in his examination u/s 313 of CrPC on the basis of contents present in the ballistic report/ Ex.P-39 which were admissible in evidence u/s 293 of CrPC – Held, grave error committed by the learned Sessions Judge – An accused person has an entitlement of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution -- Conviction technically not sustainable, appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside -- Trial against the appellant stands revived, case remanded back.

(Para 11, 12)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 326, 324, 506, 34 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 210(3) -- FIR – Private Complaint – Closure report in FIR – Acceptance of -- Cognizance by Magistrate in complaint – Power of – In FIR and private complaint, the offences are similar, and, also the offenders are the same -- Exception existing Section 210 (3), completely barred the ld. Magistrate, to after accepting the closure report, from yet assuming cognizance or valid jurisdiction, upon both, and/or to either consolidate the closure report, with private complaint.

(Para 11)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 139 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Presumption – Rebuttal of presumption  -- Signature mismatch – Cheque lost Complaint – Stop payment – Effect of -- Cheque is dated 12.06.2017 -- Cheque books were lost in 2016, GD entry and the acknowledgment of the concerned police station cannot be ignored –Request for stopping of cheques way back in 2016 made to Bank -- Subject cheque which has been dishonoured is the leaf from the cheque book which is lost way back in 2016 -- Complainant failed to place any document to establish the transaction between the complainant and the accused – In the absence of the same, it throws a doubt that whether the cheque which is the subject matter of the dispute is legally enforceable or not -- Judgment & order passed by the trial court punishing the accused and order of the lower appellate court confirming the order of the trial court set aside.

(Para 2, 3, 9-14)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Acquittal of accused – Revisional Powers for conviction -- Section 401 (3) of Cr.P.C. prohibits/bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction -- High Court has revisional power to examine whether there is manifest error of law or procedure etc., however, after giving its own findings on the findings recorded by the court acquitting the accused and after setting aside the order of acquittal, the High Court has to remit the matter to the trial Court and/or the first appellate Court, as the case may be.

(Para 9)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 – Acquittal by the first appellate court -- Revisional Powers for conviction -- High Court has two options available, (i) to remit the matter to the first appellate Court to rehear the appeal; or (ii) in an appropriate case remit the matter to the trial Court for retrial -- High Court has erred in quashing and setting aside the order of acquittal and reversing and/or converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction -- Order of conviction is therefore unsustainable, beyond the scope and ambit of Section 401 Cr.P.C., more particularly sub-section (3) of Section 401 Cr.P.C.

(Para 9)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378(4) -- Acquittal in complaint case – Right to appeal -- Where an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint, the complainant (other than victim) can prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 378 Cr.P.C., subject to the grant of special leave to appeal by the High Court.

(Para 10.1)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 378(4), 401 -- Acquittal of accused – Non-preferring of appeal by victim -- Revisional jurisdiction -- In a case where the victim and/or the complainant, as the case may be, has not preferred and/or availed the remedy of appeal against the order of acquittal as provided under Section 372 Cr.P.C. or Section 378(4), as the case may be, the revision application against the order of acquittal at the instance of the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall not be entertained and the victim or the complainant, as the case may be, shall be relegated to prefer the appeal as provided under Section 372 or Section 378(4), as the case may be.

(Para 10.2)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401(5) -- Power of High Court to treat Revision as Appeal -- Where under the Cr.P.C. an appeal lies, but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person, the High Court has jurisdiction to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly as per sub-section (5) of Section 401 Cr.P.C., however, subject to the High Court being satisfied that such an application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do and for that purpose the High Court has to pass a judicial order, may be a formal order, to treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.

(Para 11)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 401(3)(5) -- Acquittal of accused – Conviction by High court in revision – Impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused quashed and set aside – Matters remitted to the High Court – High Court directed to treat the revision applications as appeals under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and thereafter to decide and dispose of the same in accordance with law on their own merits.

(Para 12, 13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce case -- Proclamation Person – Accused was at abroad -- Averred that at the relevant time, of the serving constable proceeding to execute the proclamation notice, the petitioner was outside India -- Without believing the afore averment, supported by an affidavit, rather the impugned order yet depended upon the infirm report of the serving constable, and, hence becomes ridden with a vice of infirmity, as it was incumbent, upon the learned Magistrate concerned, to ensure, that prior thereto, his eliciting a report of the serving officer, whether the petitioner was residing at his abode, as mentioned against his name, in the memo of parties -- Service of the proclamation notice never became validly caused upon the petitioner – Impugned order quashed and set aside.

(Para 3-5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 148, 149, 506, 201 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 – Proclamation Notice – Period of 30 days to appear – Non-providing of -- Quashing of Proclaimed offender order -- Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. mandates that a period of not less than 30 days has to be provided for causing appearance from the date of publication of such proclamation -- Accused was required to appear on 9.11.2020, it was on 23.10.2020 that the proclamation was actually effected -- As on the date when the proclamation was effected i.e. on 23.10.2020, the accused was afforded only 16 days to cause his appearance – Declaration of proclaimed offender order set aside.

(Para 1, 4-6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 323, 324, 506, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of cross-version -- Delay in reporting cross-version – Ground of -- Mere delay in registration of the cross version is no ground for quashing of the same -- It is a case of version and cross version, which can only be decided after leading evidence – Petition dismissed.

(Para 8-10)